Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-64573-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <03dde247-44c1-4ba6-b5e8-bc9c68b7a294@salutedevices.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:56:31 +0300
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [DMARC error][SPF error] Re: [PATCH v4 00/10]
 devm_led_classdev_register() usage problem
Content-Language: en-US
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.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>
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>
 <CAHp75Vd1FRz9=Q7NRXsbkBu_K0+zRC6uf5nPM1Q+QnJum+74tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd1FRz9=Q7NRXsbkBu_K0+zRC6uf5nPM1Q+QnJum+74tg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello Andy

On 2/13/24 13:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:14 AM 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 AM George Stark <gnstark@salutedevices.com> wrote:
>>>> I haven't lose hope for the devm_mutex thing and keep pinging those guys
>>>> 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)

Well, it was interesting to know that there is such a practice.

Waiman Long has just updated his patches with mutex.h cleanup [1] so I
think we can wait for that series to be merged than I'll prepare may
patchseries with or w\o the first patch.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240213031656.1375951-4-longman@redhat.com/T/

> 
> 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.

Ok

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

-- 
Best regards
George