From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760257AbZDLLtI (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:49:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759616AbZDLLs4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:48:56 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:38174 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759549AbZDLLsz (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:48:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: apic/x2apic_cluster.c x86_cpu_to_logical_apicid should be static From: Jaswinder Singh Rajput To: Ingo Molnar Cc: x86 maintainers , Suresh Siddha , LKML , Sam Ravnborg In-Reply-To: <20090412105132.GA25392@elte.hu> References: <1239434726.4418.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090412105132.GA25392@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:17:38 +0530 Message-Id: <1239536858.2976.6.camel@ht.satnam> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-1.fc10) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Ingo, On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 12:51 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jaswinder Singh Rajput wrote: > > > Impact: reduce kernel size a bit, avoid sparse warning > > > > Fixes sparse warning: > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_cluster.c:13:1: warning: symbol 'per_cpu__x86_cpu_to_logical_apicid' was not declared. Should it be static? > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaswinder Singh Rajput > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_cluster.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > Applied, thanks. > > There is a not so small nit: > > > Impact: reduce kernel size a bit, avoid sparse warning > > > > Fixes sparse warning: > > the thing is, we dont 'fix', nor do we 'avoid' Sparse warnings! > > We _read_ them, _understand_ them, and then we act upon them, fixing > the problem they expose. > > Or, if there is no problem exposed, we annotate the code to fix the > Sparse false positive warning. > > Your changelog does not tell us anything whether you went through > that thought process. I had to double-check it and had to create > this information from scratch. > > Please take this as a last warning: you send lots of patches that > address various things mechanically, often without thinking through > the effects. They are expensive to maintain, because they cause > churn and because people often have to do more work accepting them > than you did creating them! > > You sent a hundred patches in two weeks and they are not applied yet > - and this is why: it is expensive to filter through them and if you > dont do it we can only do it by simply not taking them all that > easily. Taking them simply does not scale. > > And if you write a hundred patches in two weeks you _really_ have to > ask yourself whether your quality controls are strong enough before > emitting them. There are highly productive members of the Linux > community who only send a dozen patches per _year_. > OK, I will be more careful and spend more time on each patch by this way count will be reduce and quality will also improve. Please check [git-pull -tip] x86: declaration patches Sam and Thomas reviewed them and I also fixed the pointed issues. My problem is I am work-addict I can not sit ideal ;-) Thanks for your advice, -- JSR