Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94d2e491-4986-5344-c169-c1732c80bdf1@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sat, 29 Jul 2023 06:55:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@gmail.com>, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Jack Doan <me@jackdoan.com>, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230729133112.462023-1-savicaleksa83@gmail.com>
 <d7ea15aa-5348-3fd0-b399-ec03af438c85@gmail.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hwmon: (aquacomputer_d5next) Add selective 200ms delay
 after sending ctrl report
In-Reply-To: <d7ea15aa-5348-3fd0-b399-ec03af438c85@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/29/23 06:42, Aleksa Savic wrote:
> On 2023-07-29 15:31:12 GMT+02:00, Aleksa Savic wrote:
>> Add a 200ms delay after sending a ctrl report to Quadro,
>> Octo, D5 Next and Aquaero to give them enough time to
>> process the request and save the data to memory. Otherwise,
>> under heavier userspace loads where multiple sysfs entries
>> are usually set in quick succession, a new ctrl report could
>> be requested from the device while it's still processing the
>> previous one and fail with -EPIPE.
>>
>> Reported by a user on Github [1] and tested by both of us.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/aleksamagicka/aquacomputer_d5next-hwmon/issues/82
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Savic <savicaleksa83@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Added missing <linux/delay.h> include
>> ---
> Sorry for the noise, I didn't include the Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> line from v1 in v2. Do I need to resend?
> 

Normally it would be me adding that. Instead, it would make much more
sense to add a Fixes: tag, because otherwise I'll have to spend time
figuring that out. Also, you are not supposed to actually send the patch
to the stable@ mailing list because it hasn't been accepted into the
upstream kernel. It is only necessary to actually send a patch to the
stable@ mailing list if it is a backport.

Either case I'd suggest to consider addressing my feedback before sending
yet another version.

Guenter