diff mbox series

x86/APM: drop the duplicate APM_MINOR_DEV macro

Message ID 20230726234910.14775-1-rdunlap@infradead.org
State New
Headers
Series x86/APM: drop the duplicate APM_MINOR_DEV macro |

Commit Message

Randy Dunlap July 26, 2023, 11:49 p.m. UTC 
  This source file already includes <linux/miscdevice.h>, which contains
the same macro. It doesn't need to be defined here again.

Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
---
 arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c |    6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Sohil Mehta July 27, 2023, 8:06 p.m. UTC | #1 
s/drop/Drop

On 7/26/2023 4:49 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> This source file already includes <linux/miscdevice.h>, which contains
> the same macro. It doesn't need to be defined here again.
> 
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
> Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> ---

I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?

Either way,
Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
Randy Dunlap July 27, 2023, 9:21 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Sohil,

On 7/27/23 13:06, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> s/drop/Drop
> 
> On 7/26/2023 4:49 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> This source file already includes <linux/miscdevice.h>, which contains
>> the same macro. It doesn't need to be defined here again.
>>
>> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
>> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
>> Cc: x86@kernel.org
>> ---
> 
> I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
> definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
> move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?

I don't see any need for this patch to be backported.

Should it be commit 874bcd00f520c?  Maybe. That one certainly
missed moving this macro.

> Either way,
> Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>

Thanks.
Sohil Mehta July 27, 2023, 10:05 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 7/27/2023 2:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 7/27/23 13:06, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
>> definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
>> move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?
> 
> I don't see any need for this patch to be backported.
> 
> Should it be commit 874bcd00f520c?  Maybe. That one certainly
> missed moving this macro.
> 

Also, applying this patch anytime before 874bcd00f520c will cause a
compilation issue unless 874bcd00f520c is applied as well.

-Sohil
Randy Dunlap July 27, 2023, 10:41 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 7/27/23 15:05, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> On 7/27/2023 2:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 7/27/23 13:06, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>>> I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
>>> definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
>>> move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?
>>
>> I don't see any need for this patch to be backported.
>>
>> Should it be commit 874bcd00f520c?  Maybe. That one certainly
>> missed moving this macro.
>>
> 
> Also, applying this patch anytime before 874bcd00f520c will cause a
> compilation issue unless 874bcd00f520c is applied as well.

Yeah, that's a good point. Thanks.
Randy Dunlap July 28, 2023, 12:58 a.m. UTC | #5 
On 7/27/23 15:41, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/27/23 15:05, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> On 7/27/2023 2:21 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On 7/27/23 13:06, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>>>> I am not sure if a Fixes tag is really needed for a redundant macro
>>>> definition. If at all, shouldn't it be 874bcd00f520c ("apm-emulation:
>>>> move APM_MINOR_DEV to include/linux/miscdevice.h") ?
>>>
>>> I don't see any need for this patch to be backported.
>>>
>>> Should it be commit 874bcd00f520c?  Maybe. That one certainly
>>> missed moving this macro.
>>>
>>
>> Also, applying this patch anytime before 874bcd00f520c will cause a
>> compilation issue unless 874bcd00f520c is applied as well.
> 
> Yeah, that's a good point. Thanks.
> 

I'll send a v2 with the Fixes: tag changed.
Thanks.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff -- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apm_32.c
@@ -239,12 +239,6 @@  extern int (*console_blank_hook)(int);
 #endif
 
 /*
- * The apm_bios device is one of the misc char devices.
- * This is its minor number.
- */
-#define	APM_MINOR_DEV	134
-
-/*
  * Various options can be changed at boot time as follows:
  * (We allow underscores for compatibility with the modules code)
  *	apm=on/off			enable/disable APM