Re: [PATCH V1 Resend 1/5] tick-common: fix wrong check in tick_check_replacement()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 16 April 2014 00:12, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> B1;3202;0c

What does this mean ??

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
>> tick_check_replacement() returns if a replacement of clock_event_device is
>> possible or not. It does this as the first check:
>>
>>       if (tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id()))
>>               return false;
>>
>> This looks wrong as we are returning false when tick_check_percpu() returned
>> true. Probably Thomas forgot '!' here in his commit: 03e13cf5e ?
>
> Come on. You can do better changelogs.

:(

> "This looks wrong" is definitely not a good description of the
> problem.
>
> Either you know WHY it is wrong, then you say so. If not, then you can
> send an RFC.
>
> I fixed the changelog up this time.

Thanks, will take care of such stuff in future.
--
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/