On Wed 2010-05-26 21:18:24, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:15:57PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dne St 26. května 2010 21:14:25 Russell King - ARM Linux napsal(a):
> > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > This patch reorganises the sa1111_resume() function in a manner the
> > > > spinlock happens after calling the sa1111_wake(). This fixes two bugs:
> > > >
> > > > 1) This function called sa1111_wake() which tried to claim the same
> > > > spinlock
> > > >
> > > > the sa1111_resume() already claimed. This would result in certain
> > > > deadlock.
> > > >
> > > > Original idea for this part: Russell King <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > 2) The function didn't unlock the spinlock in case the chip didn't report
> > > >
> > > > correct ID.
> > > >
> > > > Original idea for this part: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Yea, good enough.
> >
> > You want me to fight your patch tracking system or will you just merge it into
> > your tree ?
>
> What do you mean "fight" ? Just send a standard git formatted patch
> to the email address with an additional KernelVersion: tag. It's
> not at all hard.
You are linux kernel maintainer. Start acting as one. It is not at all
hard.
Alternatively, just remove KernelVersion: checking in your
scripts.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Dne Čt 10. června 2010 15:56:10 Pavel Machek napsal(a):
> On Wed 2010-05-26 21:18:24, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:15:57PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > Dne St 26. května 2010 21:14:25 Russell King - ARM Linux napsal(a):
> > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > This patch reorganises the sa1111_resume() function in a manner the
> > > > > spinlock happens after calling the sa1111_wake(). This fixes two
> > > > > bugs:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) This function called sa1111_wake() which tried to claim the same
> > > > > spinlock
> > > > >
> > > > > the sa1111_resume() already claimed. This would result in
> > > > > certain deadlock.
> > > > >
> > > > > Original idea for this part: Russell King
> > > > > <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) The function didn't unlock the spinlock in case the chip didn't
> > > > > report
> > > > >
> > > > > correct ID.
> > > > >
> > > > > Original idea for this part: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > Yea, good enough.
> > >
> > > You want me to fight your patch tracking system or will you just merge
> > > it into your tree ?
> >
> > What do you mean "fight" ? Just send a standard git formatted patch
> > to the email address with an additional KernelVersion: tag. It's
> > not at all hard.
>
> You are linux kernel maintainer. Start acting as one. It is not at all
> hard.
>
> Alternatively, just remove KernelVersion: checking in your
> scripts.
>
> Pavel
Even though my problem was fixed (yeah, sorry Russell, I didn't know the patch
tracker was updated to support git-send-email), I have a question though.
I believe that Kernel-version is unnecessary. Isn't this information already
encoded in the git-send-emailed patch?
btw. guys, before another burning discussion emerges, if you two plan to make
your fights into a new sports discipline, I won't mind taking the role of a
spectator ;-) Some possible criteria would be a length of the replying email or
number of rough words ;-)
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:49:12PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Even though my problem was fixed (yeah, sorry Russell, I didn't know
> the patch tracker was updated to support git-send-email), I have a
> question though.
>
> I believe that Kernel-version is unnecessary. Isn't this information already
> encoded in the git-send-emailed patch?
It's there so that gnu patches can be accepted, and the additional
information does help when applying hard to apply patches, particularly
if either the patch has aged or was generated against an old kernel
version.
Not only that, but it was once critical when we had 2.4 and 2.5/2.6
kernel patches going via the patch system.
Last point to make - and it's in similar vain to the KernelVersion
tag - is that it would be useful if people would tag pure fixes which
should be applied to previous kernels with a "Cc: <[email protected]>"
tag along-side the existing sign-offs. That allows the stable
maintainers to automatically pick up on these patches when they're
merged into mainline.
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 14:56 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2010-05-26 21:18:24, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:15:57PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > You want me to fight your patch tracking system or will you just merge it into
> > > your tree ?
> >
> > What do you mean "fight" ? Just send a standard git formatted patch
> > to the email address with an additional KernelVersion: tag. It's
> > not at all hard.
>
> You are linux kernel maintainer. Start acting as one. It is not at all
> hard.
>
> Alternatively, just remove KernelVersion: checking in your
> scripts.
BTW (and I'm not complaining about Russell's patch system here), how can
we get the linux-arm-kernel list subscribed to patchwork.kernel.org?
That would be useful for grabbing RFC/CFT patches.
--
Catalin
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Catalin Marinas
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 14:56 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> On Wed 2010-05-26 21:18:24, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:15:57PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> > > You want me to fight your patch tracking system or will you just merge it into
>> > > your tree ?
>> >
>> > What do you mean "fight" ? Just send a standard git formatted patch
>> > to the email address with an additional KernelVersion: tag. It's
>> > not at all hard.
>>
>> You are linux kernel maintainer. Start acting as one. It is not at all
>> hard.
>>
>> Alternatively, just remove KernelVersion: checking in your
>> scripts.
>
> BTW (and I'm not complaining about Russell's patch system here), how can
> we get the linux-arm-kernel list subscribed to patchwork.kernel.org?
> That would be useful for grabbing RFC/CFT patches.
>
CC'ed Jeremy Kerr.
Jeremy,
Is it OK to add linux-arm-kernel?