Daniel Axtens [off-list ref] writes:
Hi Kai,
Thank you for your contribution to the powerpc kernel!
quoted
Get rid of warning:
arch/powerpc/kernel/eeh.c:774: warning: expecting prototype for eeh_set_pe_freset(). Prototype was for eeh_set_dev_freset() instead
You haven't said where this warning is from. I thought it might be from
sparse but I couldn't seem to reproduce it - is my version of sparse too
old or are you using a different tool?
quoted
/**
- * eeh_set_pe_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
- * @data: EEH device
+ * eeh_set_dev_freset - Check the required reset for the indicated device
+ * @edev: EEH device
* @flag: return value
*
* Each device might have its preferred reset type: fundamental or
This looks like a good and correct change.
I checked through git history with git blame to see when the function
was renamed. There are 2 commits that should have updated the comment:
one renamed the function and one renamed an argument. So, I think this
commit could have:
Fixes: d6c4932fbf24 ("powerpc/eeh: Strengthen types of eeh traversal functions")
Fixes: c270a24c59bd ("powerpc/eeh: Do reset based on PE")
But I don't know if an out of date comment is enough of a 'bug' to
justify a Fixes: tag? (mpe, I'm sure I've asked this before, sorry!)
It depends. If you think it's important that the fix gets backported
then you should add the Fixes tag.
In this case I would say no. The comments have been broken for years,
and it's a pretty obscure API.
cheers