Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-142041-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:02:46 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: lizhe <sensor1010@163.com>, rafael <rafael@kernel.org>,
	linux-pm <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: exit() callback is optional
Message-ID: <20240412063246.tk5z245miakbxws4@vireshk-i7>
References: <b97964653d02225f061e0c2a650b365c354b98c8.1712900945.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <5759bc29.32d04.18ed0ef5037.Coremail.sensor1010@163.com>
 <20240412062407.ntahibzv6xsbrnxs@vireshk-i7>
 <1b53a162.32e95.18ed0fdb13e.Coremail.sensor1010@163.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1b53a162.32e95.18ed0fdb13e.Coremail.sensor1010@163.com>

Getting the Cc list back, + Greg.

Greg,

Looks like another one of those experiments with the community ?

:)

On 12-04-24, 14:27, lizhe wrote:
> You are really disgusting and have no manners at all. This makes people feel disgusted with your company.
> 
> 
> 
> ---- Replied Message ----
> | From | Viresh Kumar<viresh.kumar@linaro.org> |
> | Date | 04/12/2024 14:24 |
> | To | lizhe<sensor1010@163.com> |
> | Cc | rafael<rafael@kernel.org>、linux-pm<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>、Vincent Guittot<vincent.guittot@linaro.org>、linux-kernel<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> |
> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: exit() callback is optional |
> On 12-04-24, 14:12, lizhe wrote:
> > I was the first one to find this problem, so the patch should be submitted by me.
> 
> :)
> 
> This patch doesn't take away any of the work you have done. What you are trying
> to do is simplify drivers with empty exit callback and the unused return value
> of the callback.
> 
> And what I am trying to do is fix a bug in the cpufreq core, which only makes
> your other patches more acceptable.
> 
> So no, you never identified the problem this patch is trying to solve.
> 
> Please don't feel that anyone is trying to take away your hardwork. That's not
> how things are done here. We appreciate anyone who is spending time to make the
> kernel better.
> 
> If I were to take credit of your work, then I would have sent a big patch to fix
> the exit() callback issue you are trying to solve, with randomly sent patches.

-- 
viresh