Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-63381-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231214173614.2820929-1-gnstark@salutedevices.com>
 <20231221151111.GJ10102@google.com> <ZcZcpUHygltD2ETa@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <d844862e-1d1c-4c9a-b7fe-e0ac44f4126e@salutedevices.com> <CAHp75VfQd9e4fLAYkYrMajnJfPQqno6s_aiTarErPiqP-Z6ydg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ae5bf6bc-5f7f-4fe9-a833-c1bfa31ff534@salutedevices.com>
In-Reply-To: <ae5bf6bc-5f7f-4fe9-a833-c1bfa31ff534@salutedevices.com>
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:55:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd1FRz9=Q7NRXsbkBu_K0+zRC6uf5nPM1Q+QnJum+74tg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DMARC error][SPF error] Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] devm_led_classdev_register()
 usage problem
To: George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>
Cc: pavel@ucw.cz, vadimp@nvidia.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, 
	christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, hdegoede@redhat.com, mazziesaccount@gmail.com, 
	nikitos.tr@gmail.com, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, 
	Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, kernel@salutedevices.com, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, 
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>, "boqun.feng@gmail.com" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, 
	"will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>, "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:14=E2=80=AFAM George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices=
com> wrote:
>
> Hello Andy
>
> On 2/12/24 12:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 1:52=E2=80=AFAM George Stark <gnstark@salutedev=
ices.com> wrote:
> >> I haven't lose hope for the devm_mutex thing and keep pinging those gu=
ys
> >> from time to time.
> >
> > I don't understand. According to v4 thread Christophe proposed on how
> > the patch should look like. What you need is to incorporate an updated
> > version into your series. Am I wrong?
>
> We agreed that the effective way of implementing devm_mutex_init() is in
> mutex.h using forward declaration of struct device.
> The only inconvenient thing is that in the mutex.h mutex_init() declared
> after mutex_destroy() so we'll have to use condition #ifdef
> CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES twice. Waiman Long proposed great cleanup patch [1]
> that eliminates the need of doubling #ifdef. That patch was reviewed a
> bit but it's still unapplied (near 2 months). I'm still trying to
> contact mutex.h guys but there're no any feedback yet.

So the roadmap (as I see it) is:
- convince Lee to take the first patch while waiting for the others
- incorporate the above mentioned patch into your series
- make an ultimatum in case there is no reaction to get it applied on
deadline, let's say within next cycle (if Lee is okay with a such, but
this is normal practice when some maintainers are non-responsive)

P.S. In case Lee doesn't want to take the first patch separately
(let's say this week), send a new version with amended patches
included.

> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231216013656.1382213-2-longman@redhat.com/=
T/#m795b230d662c1debb28463ad721ddba5b384340a


--=20
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko