* Re: AHCI_SHT(), ATA_BASE_SHT() and .can_queue
[not found] <CAO+b5-rwSy9_7LmbNBKQPmYU8M5z48WRCV3tRSjeUnswPkT+Kw@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2012-01-20 17:36 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-20 17:38 ` Bart Van Assche
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2012-01-20 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bart Van Assche; +Cc: LKML
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 05:04:21PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> I guess the fact that can_queue is specified twice and with different
> values in AHCI_SHT() was unintentional ?
Yes, it is intentional. The macros provide default values which
specific drivers or downstream class of drivers may choose to
override.
Thanks.
--
tejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: AHCI_SHT(), ATA_BASE_SHT() and .can_queue
2012-01-20 17:36 ` AHCI_SHT(), ATA_BASE_SHT() and .can_queue Tejun Heo
@ 2012-01-20 17:38 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-01-20 17:45 ` Tejun Heo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Bart Van Assche @ 2012-01-20 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: LKML
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 05:04:21PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> I guess the fact that can_queue is specified twice and with different
>> values in AHCI_SHT() was unintentional ?
>
> Yes, it is intentional. The macros provide default values which
> specific drivers or downstream class of drivers may choose to
> override.
Unfortunately sparse complains about that construct. It is annoying
when checking e.g. drivers/scsi with sparse to see sparse complain
many times about two different values being specified for .can_queue.
Should the sparse authors remove that warning ?
Bart.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: AHCI_SHT(), ATA_BASE_SHT() and .can_queue
2012-01-20 17:38 ` Bart Van Assche
@ 2012-01-20 17:45 ` Tejun Heo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2012-01-20 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bart Van Assche; +Cc: LKML
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 05:38:45PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Unfortunately sparse complains about that construct. It is annoying
> when checking e.g. drivers/scsi with sparse to see sparse complain
> many times about two different values being specified for .can_queue.
> Should the sparse authors remove that warning ?
I really don't know. Maybe sparse can provide explicit annotation
(e.g. multiple initializers for this struct is okay)? Maybe we can
just exclude duplicate initializer check on the few affected files.
Or, we can just keep ignoring them.
Thanks.
--
tejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-01-20 17:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CAO+b5-rwSy9_7LmbNBKQPmYU8M5z48WRCV3tRSjeUnswPkT+Kw@mail.gmail.com>
2012-01-20 17:36 ` AHCI_SHT(), ATA_BASE_SHT() and .can_queue Tejun Heo
2012-01-20 17:38 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-01-20 17:45 ` Tejun Heo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).