On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:12:58AM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:54:46AM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > > since this is a single file example make also API-like function static > > > and used to remove compilation warnings. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > [ snip ] > > > > > @@ -455,6 +455,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > > > > > > status = amt_get_code_versions(&acmd, &ver); > > > > > > + amt_host_if_deinit(&acmd); > > > + > > > > The changelog sucks. What is the effect of this change? Why don't we just > > delete the function instead? > > It is an API example so I don't want to remove this function > I believe it show the usage in proper place, yes it also eliminates > A compilation warning. > > Maybe the proper way would be to add API declaration section but > I'm not sure it'll add anything more descriptive. > The subject says "make all function static" and the changelog says it's to "remove compile warnings". So I was thinking, "Hm. Probably he meant Sparse warnings, not compile warnings." But then I saw the patch introduced a new function call. And I'm thinking wtf? One thing that would help and which is a standard is that when you are fixing compile warnings, put a copy of the warning into the changelog. I don't like to complain about grammar and spelling issues in changelogs, because it's a second language for so many people. But your English in emails is very good with proper capitalization and everything. Could you try writing better changelogs? regards, dan carpenter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
