Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210518155013.45622-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20210518232451.GA7362@sol> <YKTCDNcyUlrgE0Y4@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20210519080434.GA22854@sol> <YKTMninSSY3MK6Hf@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAMpxmJVJBx2J87bS0CUYPyJkHKt=nvFw65y_+iG-5JbVekuaqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMpxmJVJBx2J87bS0CUYPyJkHKt=nvFw65y_+iG-5JbVekuaqw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 16:14:45 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdZ3aws3G=4_r82LMfuMNmNdLoBpqRsfF_ogZ7c=vyTsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] gpiolib: Never return internal error codes to user space
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Suresh Balakrishnan <suresh.balakrishnan@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:08 PM Bartosz Golaszewski
<bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:30 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 04:04:34PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:45:16AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 07:24:51AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 06:50:12PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > > > Fixes: d7c51b47ac11 ("gpio: userspace ABI for reading/writing GPIO lines")
> > > > > > Fixes: 61f922db7221 ("gpio: userspace ABI for reading GPIO line events")
> > > > > > Fixes: 3c0d9c635ae2 ("gpiolib: cdev: support GPIO_V2_GET_LINE_IOCTL and GPIO_V2_LINE_GET_VALUES_IOCTL")

...

> > > > > You immediately revert this patch in patch 2.
> > > > > My understanding is that is not allowed within a patch set.
> > > >
> > > > > Why split the patches instead of going direct to the new helper?
> > > >
> > > > It's for backporting to make it easier. (I deliberately left the context above)
> > > >
> > > > I can fold them if maintainers think it's okay to do.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not sure what the constraints are on backporting, but wouldn't it be
> > > simpler and cleaner to backport the new helper?
> >
> > Logically (and ideally) it would be three different patches:
> >  1) introduce helper
> >  2) use helper
> >  3) fix places where it's needed to be done
> >
> > But the above scheme doesn't fit backporting idea (we don't backport new
> > features and APIs without really necessity). So, the options left are:
> >
> > Option a: One patch (feels a bit like above)
> > Option b: Two patches like in this series (yes, you are correct about
> >           disadvantages)
> >
> > > But, as you say, it is the maintainers' call.

> Third option is to backport this patch but apply the helper
> immediately to master.

If I got you correctly, you want to have two patches, one for
backporting and one for current, correct? But how can we backport
something which has never been upstreamed?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko