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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] staging: r8188eu: add error handling of rtw_read16
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>,
        Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, phil@philpotter.co.uk,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, straube.linux@gmail.com,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1629789580.git.paskripkin@gmail.com>
 <1665728.ljvk3MsED4@localhost.localdomain>
 <ab20fcd7-69a8-0530-7770-0e309178b0f0@gmail.com>
 <2227654.mbYB7oqmoa@localhost.localdomain>
 <794dfd94-fe88-43ac-c4ec-9ff7df9db6de@gmail.com>
 <20210825100647.GS1931@kadam>
 <3396277b-6d80-b621-0ef0-71de7d581602@gmail.com>
 <20210825103802.GS7722@kadam>
From:   Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a38b05bc-abeb-7d30-736f-1bd68c2517c3@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:41:51 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210825103802.GS7722@kadam>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 8/25/21 1:38 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>> On 8/25/21 1:06 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:55:37PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>> > > The main problem, that no one knows who is the "old". Greg can take patches
>> > > in any order he wants
>> > 
>> > Patches are always taken in first come first serve.
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> Ok, but if pending patch needs new version, then it will be taken at the
>> end?
> 
> Versions don't matter.  No one is tracking any of that.
> 
> A patch arrives.  It is either applied or rejected.  First come first
> serve.
> 

Ok, big thanks for explanation

>> 
>> Here is the situation we have:
>> 
>> 	I have the patch series based on old function behavior, it was
>> 	posted first
>> 
>> 	Then Fabio posted refactoring of the function and it changes
>> 	return values.
>> 
>> 
>> Both series are pending right now and made on top of staging-next branch.
>> Who needs to rebase? I think, applying these series as-is can broke the
>> driver, since error handling will be broken
> 
> That's a bug then.  The patch should be rejected.  You're not allowed to
> break the code.
> 
> Also don't write patches which lead to merge order breaking the code
> silently.  That makes it difficult for stable as well.  For example,
> don't do this:
> 
> -void frob(int a, int b);
> +void frob(int b, int a);
> 
> In that case, you would change the name of the function so that the
> build would break when people mix old and new code.
> 

Understandable, thank you :)


With regards,
Pavel Skripkin