On 2023-03-08 a.m.9:28, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 09:19:38AM -0500, Feng Liu wrote:
On 2023-03-08 a.m.9:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 09:07:49AM -0500, Feng Liu wrote:
On 2023-03-08 a.m.12:58, Jason Wang wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:57 AM Feng Liu <feliu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Add const to make the read-only pointer parameters clear, similar to
many existing functions.
Signed-off-by: Feng Liu <feliu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Gavin Li <gavinl@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Bodong Wang <bodong@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 25 ++++++++++++-------------
include/linux/virtio.h | 12 ++++++------
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
[...]
-/*
- * This should prevent the device from being used, allowing drivers to
+/ This should prevent the device from being used, allowing drivers to
* recover. You may need to grab appropriate locks to flush.
*/
Any reason for this change?
Hi, Jason
The original comment of the code had a syntax problem and couldn't compile,
I fixed it here
This is how it looked before your patch:
/*
* This should prevent the device from being used, allowing drivers to
* recover. You may need to grab appropriate locks to flush.
*/
I see no problem here.
Yes, you are right. I made a mistake here, I will fix it
Nice but the bigger problem is not the mistake - it is the posting of
untested code. It might be an ok thing to do - as long as you make it
super abundantrly clear that this is what it is, and explain why
you are posting it now and not after testing.
In fact, I compiled and tested locally. I just looked it up and it might
be that I was missing a “git add” action which caused the problem.
Before I post the patch in future, I will find a clean kernel source and
apply my patch for testing instead of on the branch where the code is
modified, so as to avoid this kind of problem from happening again.
Very sorry for this problem, I will be careful and pay attention to it later
Thanks
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
