Messages in this thread | | | From | Michael Ellerman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] powerpc/eeh:Fix some mistakes in comments | Date | Thu, 07 Oct 2021 23:55:23 +1100 |
| |
Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net> writes: > Hi Kai, > > Thank you for your contribution to the powerpc kernel! > >> 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? > >> /** >> - * 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 But I don't know if an out of date comment is enough of a 'bug' to 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
| |