On 05/04/2012 12:23 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 08:32 AM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/12 2:40 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> We should use zs_handle instead of void * to avoid any
>>> confusion. Without this, users may just treat zs_malloc return value as
>>> a pointer and try to deference it.
>>>
>>> Cc: Dan Magenheimer<dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk<konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim<minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/staging/zcache/zcache-main.c | 8 ++++----
>>> drivers/staging/zram/zram_drv.c | 8 ++++----
>>> drivers/staging/zram/zram_drv.h | 2 +-
>>> drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc-main.c | 28
>>> ++++++++++++++--------------
>>> drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc.h | 15 +++++++++++----
>>> 5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>> This was a long pending change. Thanks!
>
>
> The reason I hadn't done it before is that it introduces a checkpatch
> warning:
>
> WARNING: do not add new typedefs
> #303: FILE: drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc.h:19:
> +typedef void * zs_handle;
>
Yes. I did it but I think we are (a) of chapter 5: Typedefs in Documentation/CodingStyle.
(a) totally opaque objects (where the typedef is actively used to _hide_
what the object is).
No?
> In addition this particular patch has a checkpatch error:
>
> ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
> #303: FILE: drivers/staging/zsmalloc/zsmalloc.h:19:
> +typedef void * zs_handle;
It was my mistake. Will fix.
Thanks!
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>