Florian Eckert wrote on 2023-10-16 11:12:
On 2023-10-16 10:46, m.brock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Florian Eckert wrote on 2023-10-16 09:13:
Has complained about the following construct:
Who is "Has" or who/what has complained?
The test robot who does not agree with my change in the v1 patchset.
You don't have to explain to me, just fix the comment.
drivers/leds/trigger/ledtrig-tty.c:362:3: error: a label can only be
part of a statement and a declaration is not a statement
Hence move the variable definition to the beginning of the function.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes:
https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309270440.IJB24Xap-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
Signed-off-by: Florian Eckert <fe@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
@@ -124,8 +125,6 @@ static void ledtrig_tty_work(struct work_struct
*work)
if (icount.rx != trigger_data->rx ||
icount.tx != trigger_data->tx) {
- unsigned long interval = LEDTRIG_TTY_INTERVAL;
-
Is this kernel test robot broken?
The test robot does nothing wrong.
I see no label definition here.
And this variable declaration is at the start of a new block which
does
not even require C99 support.
I made change in patch set v1, that moves the definition of the
variable
`interval` into the switch case statement.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-leds/20230926093607.59536-3-fe@xxxxxxxxxx/
The robot complained about this.
So I decided to move the definition of the variable 'interval' to
function
head to make the test robot happy in the commit. So this commit
prepares
the code for my change.
If it is more common, I can merge this patch [1] into the next patch
[2]
of this set.
Yes, please. You're fixing a problem that does not exist yet (and never
will), because the patch that introduces it is not yet applied. So fix
the proposed patch instead of patching the patch.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-leds/20231016071332.597654-4-fe@xxxxxxxxxx/
[2]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-leds/20231016071332.597654-5-fe@xxxxxxxxxx/
Florian
Maarten
