[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH parted 1/7] libparted: add ped_device_get_xxx_alignment() fun

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [PATCH parted 1/7] libparted: add ped_device_get_xxx_alignment() functions
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:38:37 +0100

Hans de Goede wrote:
> Add ped_device_get_minimum_alignment() and ped_device_get_optimum_alignment()
> functions to libparted.
> Note this is a resent of my previous patchset with a number of typos 
> corrected:
> aligment -> alignment
> minimal_alignment -> minimum_aligment
> optimal_alignment -> optimum_aligment

Hi Hans,

Thanks for fixing that.
However, while the result does compile on rawhide, it fails to compile on F12:

  In file included from arch/linux.c:22:
  ./arch/linux.h:43: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before 
  arch/linux.c: In function 'linux_get_minimum_alignment':
  arch/linux.c:2526: error: 'blkid_topology' undeclared (first use in this 
  arch/linux.c:2539: error: expected ';' before 'tp'

Also, in the future, please insert notes like the one above after
the "---" line in git format-patch output.  Otherwise it ends
up in the git commit log and I might have to (or forget to) amend it out.

Also, please limit the commit log line length to 72 characters,
since the git log is used to automatically generate a ChangeLog file
and that procedure deliberately does not wrap long lines.

That latter is why we prefer at least some mention of what files
and functions (in standard ChangeLog notation) are affected by
each patch -- see other log entries for examples.

Finally, any significant change like this needs at least a
trace of testing.  Preferably a new script in tests/ that exercises
any new code.  That makes it trivial to ensure that in the covered
code paths there are no new leaks or obvious-to-valgrind problems.
If you don't have time to write the test, give me a few hints
and I'll do that.

I see that with this patch series on rawhide, nearly every single test
that is run via "make check" (as non-root) now fails.
Did "make check" pass for you?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]