Re: [PATCH][drm-next] drm/pl111: make structure pl111_display_funcs static

[Eric Anholt]

Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 03:03:31PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > structure pl111_display_funcs can be made static as it does not need to be
>> > in global scope.  Fixes sparse warning:
>> >
>> > "warning: symbol 'pl111_display_funcs' was not declared. Should it
>> > be static?"
>> >
>> > Fixes: bed41005e6174d ("drm/pl111: Initial drm/kms driver for pl111")
>> 
>> The patch looks good and I appreciate what you're doing, but I question
>> the usefulness of adding Fixes: tags for trivial stuff like this. I'd
>> prefer Fixes: was reserved for actual fixes that should be backported to
>> any kernels that have the commit being fixed.
>> 
>> The same applies to many other patches you've sent recently.
>> 
>
> The Fixes tag is so so useful for everything.  It should be included
> in every bugfix.  (I am the inventor of the Fixes tag).
>
> I told Colin to include the Fixes tag on everything.  My review process
> is partly "How was this bug introduced?  How can we prevent it from
> happening again?  Who was the original author and have they reviewed the
> proposed fix?"  So I end up looking up the original commit anyway.  It
> helps me a lot to have the Fixes tag there.
>
> The Fixes tag is obviously useful for the stable people as well, but
> that wasn't really the point.

OK, that's definitely not how I've read the
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst description of the Fixes
tag, which talks about bugs found with git bisect and things that should
go to -stable.  I would not have considered what this patch is changing
to be a bug.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature