Re: [PATCH 4/4] Staging: android: Fix struct definitioni warningfrom static to const

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:08:38AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 02:17:49AM +0000, Kashyap Gada wrote:
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> > index 4a00174a5..9f1f27e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> > @@ -680,7 +680,7 @@ static long ashmem_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -const struct file_operations ashmem_fops = {
> > +static const struct file_operations ashmem_fops = {
> >  	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> >  	.open = ashmem_open,
> >  	.release = ashmem_release,
> 
> No.  We're not going to merge the broken patch which removes the
> static.
> 
> Plus your patch numbering is totally bogus.
> [PATCH 2/2]
> [PATCH 3/3]
> [PATCH 4/4]
> [PATCH 5/5]
> 
> The second number is supposed to say how many patches there are in
> the series.  If these were bug fixes, we'd go out of our way to work
> with you, but you're just sending random whitespace fixes so they
> have to be pretty much perfect.  (In other words, please slow down
> and work more carefully or else focus on fixing bugs instead of
> whitespace).

The patches also don't have the most basic things needed for acceptance
(i.e. a description and most importantly, a Signed-off-by:), so I can't
take them at all.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/