1:24 p.m.
Hi Andy, All,
On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 23:20 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 10:46 PM kernel test robot
<lkp(a)intel.com>
wrote:
>
> include/linux/bitops.h:35:2: warning: this 'for' clause does not
> guard... [-Wmisleading-indentation]
> 35 | for ((bit) = find_first_bit((addr), (size)); \
> | ^~~
> drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c:242:3: note: in expansion of
> macro 'for_each_set_bit'
> 242 | for_each_set_bit(j, &stat->notifs, BITS_PER_TYPE(stat-
> >notifs))
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/regulator/irq_helpers.c:244:4: note: ...this statement,
> but the latter is misleadingly indented as if it were guarded by
> the 'for'
Seems like missed {}
Matti, there is a serious question: how had you tested this...
I actually did. I did not just run rebase for the series and threw new
version but I actually did run this in real HW, with real break-out
board and with a fresh info print to see the event being sent.
(besides obvious compilation error)
Perhaps you have to fix your process somewhere to avoid missing
important steps?
Yes. Can't deny this. And process fix should be simple. If code/patch
needs a change (even a print removal/print severity change/parameter
change) - then it needs to be tested again prior formatting the
patches.
Sorry folks.
--Matti