Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call directly
rtw_ps_processor().
Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c | 7 +------
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
index ce73ac7cf973..35e6a943c556 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
@@ -1669,11 +1669,6 @@ u8 rtw_antenna_select_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, u8 antenna, u8 enqueue)
return res;
}
-static void power_saving_wk_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *pbuf, int sz)
-{
- rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
-}
-
#ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P
u8 p2p_protocol_wk_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, int intCmdType)
{
@@ -1941,7 +1936,7 @@ u8 rtw_drvextra_cmd_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char *pbuf)
dynamic_chk_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
break;
case POWER_SAVING_CTRL_WK_CID:
- power_saving_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
+ rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
break;
case LPS_CTRL_WK_CID:
lps_ctrl_wk_hdl(padapter, (u8)pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
--
2.32.0
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call directly
> rtw_ps_processor().
>
> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c | 7 +------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> index ce73ac7cf973..35e6a943c556 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> @@ -1669,11 +1669,6 @@ u8 rtw_antenna_select_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, u8 antenna, u8 enqueue)
> return res;
> }
>
> -static void power_saving_wk_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *pbuf, int sz)
> -{
> - rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
> -}
> -
> #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P
> u8 p2p_protocol_wk_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, int intCmdType)
> {
> @@ -1941,7 +1936,7 @@ u8 rtw_drvextra_cmd_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char *pbuf)
> dynamic_chk_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> break;
> case POWER_SAVING_CTRL_WK_CID:
> - power_saving_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> + rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
> break;
> case LPS_CTRL_WK_CID:
> lps_ctrl_wk_hdl(padapter, (u8)pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> --
> 2.32.0
>
>
Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my staging-next
branch and resend.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>> Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
>> the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call directly
>> rtw_ps_processor().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c | 7 +------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
>> index ce73ac7cf973..35e6a943c556 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
>> @@ -1669,11 +1669,6 @@ u8 rtw_antenna_select_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, u8 antenna, u8 enqueue)
>> return res;
>> }
>>
>> -static void power_saving_wk_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *pbuf, int sz)
>> -{
>> - rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
>> -}
>> -
>> #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P
>> u8 p2p_protocol_wk_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, int intCmdType)
>> {
>> @@ -1941,7 +1936,7 @@ u8 rtw_drvextra_cmd_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char *pbuf)
>> dynamic_chk_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
>> break;
>> case POWER_SAVING_CTRL_WK_CID:
>> - power_saving_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
>> + rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
>> break;
>> case LPS_CTRL_WK_CID:
>> lps_ctrl_wk_hdl(padapter, (u8)pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
>> --
>> 2.32.0
>>
>>
>
> Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my staging-next
> branch and resend.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
Hi Greg,
I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you help me
to understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always need
to rebase against staging-next..!
Regards,
Saurav Girepunje
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 12:36:06 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > > > Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> > > > > the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call directly
> > > > > rtw_ps_processor().
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > []
> > > >
> > > > Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my staging-next
> > > > branch and resend.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you help me
> to
> > > understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always need to
> > > rebase against staging-next..!
> >
> > Yes, you should. When you are working on code that lots of other people
> > are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just need to
> > stay on top of it.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> >
>
> Sorry, Greg. I'm confused... :(
>
> As far as I know, everyone here make patches for staging-testing.
Nope. It's only you.
The staging-testing branch can be rebased so maybe you will write a
patch against something that never makes it to staging-next and everyone
will be puzzled.
That's unlikely to happen and we won't be puzzled for long because we
try not to invest too much time wondering why patches don't apply.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>
>
> On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> > > the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call directly
> > > rtw_ps_processor().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c | 7 +------
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > index ce73ac7cf973..35e6a943c556 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > @@ -1669,11 +1669,6 @@ u8 rtw_antenna_select_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, u8 antenna, u8 enqueue)
> > > return res;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static void power_saving_wk_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, u8 *pbuf, int sz)
> > > -{
> > > - rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P
> > > u8 p2p_protocol_wk_cmd(struct adapter *padapter, int intCmdType)
> > > {
> > > @@ -1941,7 +1936,7 @@ u8 rtw_drvextra_cmd_hdl(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char *pbuf)
> > > dynamic_chk_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> > > break;
> > > case POWER_SAVING_CTRL_WK_CID:
> > > - power_saving_wk_hdl(padapter, pdrvextra_cmd->pbuf, pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> > > + rtw_ps_processor(padapter);
> > > break;
> > > case LPS_CTRL_WK_CID:
> > > lps_ctrl_wk_hdl(padapter, (u8)pdrvextra_cmd->type_size);
> > > --
> > > 2.32.0
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my staging-next
> > branch and resend.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> >
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you help me to
> understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always need to
> rebase against staging-next..!
Yes, you should. When you are working on code that lots of other people
are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just need to
stay on top of it.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Monday, September 20, 2021 1:32:21 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 12:36:06 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > > > > Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> > > > > > the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call
directly
> > > > > > rtw_ps_processor().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > []
> > > > >
> > > > > Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my staging-
next
> > > > > branch and resend.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Greg,
> > > >
> > > > I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you help
me
> > to
> > > > understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always need
to
> > > > rebase against staging-next..!
> > >
> > > Yes, you should. When you are working on code that lots of other
people
> > > are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just need to
> > > stay on top of it.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, Greg. I'm confused... :(
> >
> > As far as I know, everyone here make patches for staging-testing.
>
> Nope. It's only you.
And Saurav (at least) :)
I've been misled and in turn I misled Pavel. This is due to a guide in
kernelnewbies.org that explicitly says to use staging-testing:
https://kernelnewbies.org/OutreachyfirstpatchSetup
In that page the is a section ("Set up your Linux kernel code repository")
which says: "[] Then use the revision control system called git to clone Greg
Kroah-Hartman's staging tree repository: git clone -b staging-testing git://
git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git".
I assumed that those instructions must be followed also by developers that
are not (anymore) in the Outreachy program.
Obviously, I was wrong in assuming the above.
Thanks for your reply, Dan.
Regards,
Fabio
>
> The staging-testing branch can be rebased so maybe you will write a
> patch against something that never makes it to staging-next and everyone
> will be puzzled.
>
> That's unlikely to happen and we won't be puzzled for long because we
> try not to invest too much time wondering why patches don't apply.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
On Monday, September 20, 2021 12:36:06 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > > Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> > > > the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call directly
> > > > rtw_ps_processor().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > []
> > >
> > > Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my staging-next
> > > branch and resend.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > greg k-h
> > >
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you help me
to
> > understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always need to
> > rebase against staging-next..!
>
> Yes, you should. When you are working on code that lots of other people
> are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just need to
> stay on top of it.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
Sorry, Greg. I'm confused... :(
As far as I know, everyone here make patches for staging-testing. You apply
them to staging-testing first and, about 24 hours later, you merge them into
staging-next.
In fact I receive two distinct messages, one after the other, when you apply
to staging-testing and then to staging-next.
This is the what I've always done here and you haven't ever asked me to
rebase against staging-next... So, why are you asking for doing that rebase
on staging-next to Saurav?
Thanks,
Fabio
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:31:28PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 1:32:21 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 12:36:06 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > > > > > Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> > > > > > > the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call
> directly
> > > > > > > rtw_ps_processor().
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > []
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my staging-
> next
> > > > > > branch and resend.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > greg k-h
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > >
> > > > > I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you help
> me
> > > to
> > > > > understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always need
> to
> > > > > rebase against staging-next..!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you should. When you are working on code that lots of other
> people
> > > > are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just need to
> > > > stay on top of it.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > greg k-h
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, Greg. I'm confused... :(
> > >
> > > As far as I know, everyone here make patches for staging-testing.
> >
> > Nope. It's only you.
>
> And Saurav (at least) :)
>
Nope. Saurav is working against something old. You can see the
#ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P stuff that was removed in commit 102243f893ec
("staging: r8188eu: Remove conditionals CONFIG_88EU_{AP_MODE,P2P}") was
applied.
> I've been misled and in turn I misled Pavel. This is due to a guide in
> kernelnewbies.org that explicitly says to use staging-testing:
>
> https://kernelnewbies.org/OutreachyfirstpatchSetup
>
> In that page the is a section ("Set up your Linux kernel code repository")
> which says: "[] Then use the revision control system called git to clone Greg
> Kroah-Hartman's staging tree repository: git clone -b staging-testing git://
> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git".
>
Huh...
Those aren't *bad* instructions. Working against testing-next is fine,
but just be aware that it can rebase.
regards,
dan carpenter
On Monday, September 20, 2021 2:39:10 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:31:28PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 1:32:21 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 12:36:06 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje
wrote:
> > > > > > > > Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> > > > > > > > the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call
> > directly
> > > > > > > > rtw_ps_processor().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > []
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my
staging-
> > next
> > > > > > > branch and resend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > greg k-h
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you
help
> > me
> > > > to
> > > > > > understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always
need
> > to
> > > > > > rebase against staging-next..!
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you should. When you are working on code that lots of other
> > people
> > > > > are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just
need to
> > > > > stay on top of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, Greg. I'm confused... :(
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, everyone here make patches for staging-testing.
> > >
> > > Nope. It's only you.
> >
> > And Saurav (at least) :)
> >
>
> Nope. Saurav is working against something old. You can see the
> #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P stuff that was removed in commit 102243f893ec
> ("staging: r8188eu: Remove conditionals CONFIG_88EU_{AP_MODE,P2P}") was
> applied.
>
Oh, I didn't notice that he was working against something old.
My attention was drawn only by the fact that Greg talked about staging-next,
while I was expecting something like "please rebase and resend against my
current staging-testing".
> > I've been misled and in turn I misled Pavel. This is due to a guide in
> > kernelnewbies.org that explicitly says to use staging-testing:
> >
> > https://kernelnewbies.org/OutreachyfirstpatchSetup
> >
> > In that page the is a section ("Set up your Linux kernel code
repository")
> > which says: "[] Then use the revision control system called git to clone
Greg
> > Kroah-Hartman's staging tree repository: git clone -b staging-testing
git://
> > git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git".
> >
>
> Huh...
>
> Those aren't *bad* instructions. Working against testing-next is fine,
> but just be aware that it can rebase.
Good to know. For what the series Pavel and I submitted we'll complete our
work, that is sending v9, against current staging-testing. I suppose we'd
better stay consistent.
For new work, since you make notice that we have to "be aware that it
[staging-testing] can rebase", we'll switch to staging-next.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Regards,
Fabio
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
On 20/09/21 7:24 pm, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Monday, September 20, 2021 2:39:10 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:31:28PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 1:32:21 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 12:36:06 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
>>>>>>>>> the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call
>>> directly
>>>>>>>>> rtw_ps_processor().
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my
> staging-
>>> next
>>>>>>>> branch and resend.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> greg k-h
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you
> help
>>> me
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always
> need
>>> to
>>>>>>> rebase against staging-next..!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you should. When you are working on code that lots of other
>>> people
>>>>>> are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just
> need to
>>>>>> stay on top of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> greg k-h
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, Greg. I'm confused... :(
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, everyone here make patches for staging-testing.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. It's only you.
>>>
>>> And Saurav (at least) :)
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Saurav is working against something old. You can see the
>> #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P stuff that was removed in commit 102243f893ec
>> ("staging: r8188eu: Remove conditionals CONFIG_88EU_{AP_MODE,P2P}") was
>> applied.
>>
>
> Oh, I didn't notice that he was working against something old.
>
> My attention was drawn only by the fact that Greg talked about staging-next,
> while I was expecting something like "please rebase and resend against my
> current staging-testing".
>
>>> I've been misled and in turn I misled Pavel. This is due to a guide in
>>> kernelnewbies.org that explicitly says to use staging-testing:
>>>
>>> https://kernelnewbies.org/OutreachyfirstpatchSetup
>>>
>>> In that page the is a section ("Set up your Linux kernel code
> repository")
>>> which says: "[] Then use the revision control system called git to clone
> Greg
>>> Kroah-Hartman's staging tree repository: git clone -b staging-testing
> git://
>>> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git".
>>>
>>
>> Huh...
>>
>> Those aren't *bad* instructions. Working against testing-next is fine,
>> but just be aware that it can rebase.
>
> Good to know. For what the series Pavel and I submitted we'll complete our
> work, that is sending v9, against current staging-testing. I suppose we'd
> better stay consistent.
>
> For new work, since you make notice that we have to "be aware that it
> [staging-testing] can rebase", we'll switch to staging-next.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fabio
>
>>
>> regards,
>> dan carpenter
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
I will also do rebase to staging-next.
Thanks Greg, Dan for you clarification.
Thanks Fabio for your input .
Regards,
Saurav