On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:58:04AM +0000, Patrick Uiterwijk wrote:
> Hi Vivien,
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Vivien Didelot
> <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
> > Hi Andrew, Patrick,
> >
> > Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> >>> Hi Patrick,
> >>>
> >>> Two comments below.
> >>>
> >>> Patrick Uiterwijk <patr...@puiterwijk.org> writes:
> >>>
> >>> > +static int mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes(struct dsa_switch *ds)
> >>>
> >>> Since this function assumes the SMI lock is already held, its name
> >>> should be prefixed with _ by convention (_mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes).
> >>
> >> We decided to drop at, since nearly everything would end up with a _
> >> prefix. The assert_smi_lock() should find any missing locks, and
> >> lockdep/deadlocks will make it clear when the lock is taken twice.
> >
> > OK, I didn't know that. This makes sense. There is no need to respin a
> > v3 only for my previous &= comment then.
>
> Does that mean the merger will fix this up?
> Or that I'll roll a v3 when I get a reviewed-by for the second patch?
Hi Patrick
Role a v3, and you can add
Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>
as well as Viviens for patch #1.
Andrew
