Remove unneeded time() declaration.
PATCH 1/1 Remove unneeded time() declaration.
The 'extern long time()' declaration conflicts with time.h which declares time() to be of type time_t which may or may not be long. This declaration causes a build failure on x86_64 if the file is compiled with the -mx32 flag. The time() function does not appear to be used anywhere in fcntl14 so I am not sure why the declaration is there anyway.
--- testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
testcases/kernel/syscalls/fcntl/fcntl14.c +0 -2
@@ -775,8 +775,6 @@ void dochild(void)void run_test (int file_flag,int file_mode,int seek,int start,int end) { -extern long time (); - fail =0 ;for (test = start; test < end; test++) {
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4
PATCH 1/1 Remove unneeded time() declaration.
Hi!
Quoted 6 lines
The 'extern long
time()' declaration conflicts withtime.hwhich declarestime()to be of typetime_twhich may or may not be long. This declaration causes a build failure onx86_64if the file is compiled with the -mx32 flag. Thetime()function does not appear to be used anywhere in fcntl14 so I am not sure why the declaration is there anyway.
This is obviously correct, but the patch misses the Signed-of-by: line.
Also usually the first line of the patch describes what testcase it fixes so it should have been something like:
syscalls/fcntl14: Remove unneeded time() declaration.
Can you please resend with fixed commit description?
Signature · 2 lines
Cyril Hrubis [email protected]
PATCH 1/1 Remove unneeded time() declaration.
Quoted 11 lines · Cyril Hrubis
Hi!
Quoted 7 lines
The 'extern long
time()' declaration conflicts withtime.hwhich declarestime()to be of typetime_twhich may or may not be long. This declaration causes a build failure onx86_64if the file is compiled with the -mx32 flag. Thetime()function does not appear to be used anywhere in fcntl14 so I am not sure why the declaration is there anyway.This is obviously correct, but the patch misses the Signed-of-by:
line.
Quoted 6 lines
Also usually the first line of the patch describes what testcase it fixes so it should have been something like:
syscalls/fcntl14: Remove unneeded
time()declaration.Can you please resend with fixed commit description?
I updated the comments and resent the patch using format-patch and send-email. I am not sure if that is the right way to do it but I don't see any way to use format-patch/send-email to resend the patch as a response to your email so I sent it as a new email/thread. The inability (as far as I know) to update the patch and send it as a response to an existing email thread is one of the reasons I am not a huge fan of those tools but if that is how you want it done, I will do it that way.
Steve Ellcey
PATCH 1/1 Remove unneeded time() declaration.
Hi!
Quoted 8 lines
I updated the comments and resent the patch using format-patch and send-email. ??I am not sure if that is the right way to do it but I don't see any way to use format-patch/send-email to resend the patch as a response to your email so I sent it as a new email/thread. ??The inability (as far as I know) to update the patch and send it as a response to an existing email thread is one of the reasons I am not a huge fan of those tools but if that is how you want it done, I will do it that way.
The usuall way is to send new version of a patchset as new thread, ideally adding vN to the subject where N is number that increases with each iteration.
And yes, the git-send-email is tailored to specific workflow so as far as the workflow works for particular project, everything works great.
But the same goes for GitHub, I do not like the workflow their tools are tailored for, but I still use them when needed. And quite possibly I do not like it since I'm still much more used to sending patches by email...
Anyway all that matters in the end is that patches gets applied :-).
Signature · 2 lines
Cyril Hrubis [email protected]