From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753072AbaIAXl5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:41:57 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:3522 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752514AbaIAXl4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 19:41:56 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,445,1406617200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="474504796" Message-ID: <1409614914.2384.3.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> Subject: Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Resolve some shadow warnings From: Jeff Kirsher To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@redhat.com, Mark Rustad , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:41:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140901120244.GI27892@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1409228366-7027-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20140901120244.GI27892@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-IlTSsz24CSROd4Ghw3EH" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-3.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-IlTSsz24CSROd4Ghw3EH Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 14:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 05:19:26AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > From: Mark Rustad > >=20 > > Resolve some shadow warnings resulting from using the name > > jiffies, which is a well-known global. This is not a problem > > of course, but it could be a trap for someone copying and > > pasting code, and it just makes W=3D2 a little cleaner. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher >=20 > Why isn't Mark sending this email? Mark sent me several patches like this, for me to push upstream. So, I am making sure the appropriate owner is the receives the patch versus blindly sending to LKML. >=20 > > --- > > kernel/locking/semaphore.c | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >=20 > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c > > index 6815171..7782dbc 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c > > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ > > static noinline void __down(struct semaphore *sem); > > static noinline int __down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem); > > static noinline int __down_killable(struct semaphore *sem); > > -static noinline int __down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long jiffies= ); > > +static noinline int __down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long njiffie= s); > > static noinline void __up(struct semaphore *sem); >=20 > So what's wrong with calling it "timeout" instead? That's what most > other sites do. Timeout would work as well to resolve the shadow warnings. --=-IlTSsz24CSROd4Ghw3EH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCgAGBQJUBQRCAAoJEOVv75VaS+3Od6EQAIcs2wwtuPQGVLrzDW8JOSlA CarjUhqrPi2MERqeFPZS0nGWv8BqhcvSp4BT+/u/w/w6Qsjn+CKtO842B2wW5YSX RV3vnTkoqfo6H4G42BbDDjTTy1MmC9ZJVKdNDIeHlJU6XwNgz1obfmy+bUEd704g fagow5lw37RuccnVRKjdIg9aZgj92eIgK55OUoE87U9oBPWziOT3LtcYft7T5FSU kam60Acd5+QBrYqQciqIidBpTUfhR9SaWF5VdNVi/boxe5nE5lqriLVdPm3Atixk 5siH+rx2ASpftj0RV+8IwlwAWy3ZUeYK6UKCFJHHyCbTi4c5PCDXundY6R0k1mhT f+BS6Jc0hQ/jHSnjT2gnwEFjTN3UjWSh5SnbZVt/aNMrCuZV4W31cr+qkRSnAlHl X7vtDv2+AYI4X6pbTjx/74z/4knFSYyGJzQkTz3N1LMKNeMOR3C8IVSq9AcfrXsT vlppKmrYk0bBeQXyUWYVJDuMCqew5ba5Eqhif3q4031ynfbRWLbBIpUx92mLjLyW +Xsw2naewvNsn1nE2AgO4PI+TAOeNZF4fdG30cvdDLFm+fQ4L3tgEIbYVxBMkbzT 0mtvRR8qM7yOn1Bpwu6Ub8E6DcrErf8K66MJDEk03MEE2Uq9XlwTrGlgYxPY5JvB hY17ZqBORK3hnCi5fIGL =3i4z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-IlTSsz24CSROd4Ghw3EH--