Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 09:57:06PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > I tried to apply the 3rd, but it didn't apply due to patches I applied > > in your first set of 4 patches. > > > > Does that help? > > Yes, thanks. I've resent the patchset yesterday as v3: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/27/805 > > It applies cleanly to current staging-testing (aa9d9be), > I've just retested it. Please give it a try. Thanks, I'll do that when I get around to applying staging patches again, sometime next week, I'm supposed to be on vacation right now... greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:32:48PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > > > > > > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value > > > > > > > instead > > > > > > > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some > > > > > > > value at loading time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski > > > > > > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 > > > > > > > +-- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was > > > > > > acked. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't > > > > > > seem to > > > > > > get the rest of these to work properly. > > > > > > > > > > Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from > > > > > v1 > > > > > and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1->v2 patch, right? > > > > > > > > No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 > > > > or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my > > > > staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. > > > > > > And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second > > > set of patches "v2", which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a > > > few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled "v2" so I > > > thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who > > > has to decipher things like this when you send them out... > > > > I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963 > > Which I applied. > > > Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922 > > > > And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653 > > So I thought your series of 9 was separate from the series of 4, you can > see my confusion (remember, I receive on _average_ about 1000 emails a day). > > > Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because > > what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm > > not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do. > > > > BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied. > > I tried to apply the 3rd, but it didn't apply due to patches I applied > in your first set of 4 patches. > > Does that help? Yes, thanks. I've resent the patchset yesterday as v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/27/805 It applies cleanly to current staging-testing (aa9d9be), I've just retested it. Please give it a try. Thanks, Mariusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > > > > > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead > > > > > > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some > > > > > > value at loading time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski > > > > > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau > > > > > > --- > > > > > > v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 > > > > > > +-- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. > > > > > > > > > > Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem > > > > > to > > > > > get the rest of these to work properly. > > > > > > > > Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 > > > > and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1->v2 patch, right? > > > > > > No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 > > > or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my > > > staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. > > > > And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second > > set of patches "v2", which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a > > few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled "v2" so I > > thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who > > has to decipher things like this when you send them out... > > I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963 Which I applied. > Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922 > > And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653 So I thought your series of 9 was separate from the series of 4, you can see my confusion (remember, I receive on _average_ about 1000 emails a day). > Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because > what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm > not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do. > > BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied. I tried to apply the 3rd, but it didn't apply due to patches I applied in your first set of 4 patches. Does that help? greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some value at loading time. Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski marius.gor...@gmail.com Acked-by: Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu --- v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 +-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to get the rest of these to work properly. Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1-v2 patch, right? No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second set of patches v2, which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled v2 so I thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who has to decipher things like this when you send them out... I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963 Which I applied. Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922 And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653 So I thought your series of 9 was separate from the series of 4, you can see my confusion (remember, I receive on _average_ about 1000 emails a day). Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do. BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied. I tried to apply the 3rd, but it didn't apply due to patches I applied in your first set of 4 patches. Does that help? greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:32:48PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some value at loading time. Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski marius.gor...@gmail.com Acked-by: Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu --- v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 +-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to get the rest of these to work properly. Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1-v2 patch, right? No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second set of patches v2, which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled v2 so I thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who has to decipher things like this when you send them out... I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963 Which I applied. Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922 And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653 So I thought your series of 9 was separate from the series of 4, you can see my confusion (remember, I receive on _average_ about 1000 emails a day). Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do. BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied. I tried to apply the 3rd, but it didn't apply due to patches I applied in your first set of 4 patches. Does that help? Yes, thanks. I've resent the patchset yesterday as v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/27/805 It applies cleanly to current staging-testing (aa9d9be), I've just retested it. Please give it a try. Thanks, Mariusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 09:57:06PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: I tried to apply the 3rd, but it didn't apply due to patches I applied in your first set of 4 patches. Does that help? Yes, thanks. I've resent the patchset yesterday as v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/27/805 It applies cleanly to current staging-testing (aa9d9be), I've just retested it. Please give it a try. Thanks, I'll do that when I get around to applying staging patches again, sometime next week, I'm supposed to be on vacation right now... greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Mariusz, for people who have to parse hundreds to thousands of e-mails > a day, dealing with non-trivial operation modes like this is never easy. > > I think (I'll let Greg suggest what he prefers) that the most reliable > thing to do *right now* is to rebase your tree on top of Greg's staging > tree, and you send the resulting series (what you apply *after* staging) Actually 'staging-testing' branch would be better: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/log/?h=staging-testing=100 There are 4 patches from Mariusz already applied there. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second > > set of patches "v2", which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a > > few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled "v2" so I > > thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who > > has to decipher things like this when you send them out... > > I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963 > > Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922 > > And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653 > > Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because > what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm > not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do. > > BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied. Mariusz, for people who have to parse hundreds to thousands of e-mails a day, dealing with non-trivial operation modes like this is never easy. I think (I'll let Greg suggest what he prefers) that the most reliable thing to do *right now* is to rebase your tree on top of Greg's staging tree, and you send the resulting series (what you apply *after* staging) at once, maybe even tagged as v3 to avoid any confusion. Sometimes for the recipient, things apparently as simple as sorting e-mails by subjects to find something can cause some confusion when it's not obvious what replaces what, and tagging with the version or ensuring that each series is different enough helps avoiding this. If you need any help, contact me off-list and I'll gladly help you. Don't worry, issues like this commonly happen and will happen again, whatever you do against them will only reduce the likeliness that they happen again (and that's important to care about this) :-) Thanks, Willy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > > > > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead > > > > > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some > > > > > value at loading time. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski > > > > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau > > > > > --- > > > > > v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check > > > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 > > > > > +-- > > > > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. > > > > > > > > Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to > > > > get the rest of these to work properly. > > > > > > Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 > > > and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1->v2 patch, right? > > > > No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 > > or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my > > staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. > > And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second > set of patches "v2", which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a > few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled "v2" so I > thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who > has to decipher things like this when you send them out... I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963 Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922 And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653 Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do. BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied. > thanks, > > greg k-h Cheers, Mariusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:14:06PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second > > set of patches "v2", which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a > > few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled "v2" so I > > thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who > > has to decipher things like this when you send them out... > > For Mariusz's defense, this was his first batch. He didn't feel comfortable > and asked me how to proceed when sending a series and I forgot to warn him > about the "v2" as initially I didn't think there would be a v2, and after I > obviously forgot I didn't speak about that. So I share some responsibility > for this one. I wasn't trying to make anyone feel bad here, just trying to explain why I got this all messed up on my end. Mariusz, consider this a chance to learn how to rebase your patches, a very common task for kernel developers to have to do :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second > set of patches "v2", which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a > few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled "v2" so I > thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who > has to decipher things like this when you send them out... For Mariusz's defense, this was his first batch. He didn't feel comfortable and asked me how to proceed when sending a series and I forgot to warn him about the "v2" as initially I didn't think there would be a v2, and after I obviously forgot I didn't speak about that. So I share some responsibility for this one. Mariusz, if you need some help, tell me so. Regards, Willy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > > > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead > > > > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some > > > > value at loading time. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski > > > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau > > > > --- > > > > v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 > > > > +-- > > > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > > > > > Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. > > > > > > Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to > > > get the rest of these to work properly. > > > > Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 > > and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1->v2 patch, right? > > No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 > or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my > staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second set of patches "v2", which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled "v2" so I thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who has to decipher things like this when you send them out... thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead > > > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some > > > value at loading time. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski > > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau > > > --- > > > v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check > > > > > > drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 > > > +-- > > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > > > Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. > > > > Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to > > get the rest of these to work properly. > > Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 > and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1->v2 patch, right? No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead > > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some > > value at loading time. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau > > --- > > v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check > > > > drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 > > +-- > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. > > Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to > get the rest of these to work properly. Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1->v2 patch, right? > thanks, > > greg k-h Cheers, Mariusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some value at loading time. Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski marius.gor...@gmail.com Acked-by: Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu --- v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 +-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to get the rest of these to work properly. Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1-v2 patch, right? thanks, greg k-h Cheers, Mariusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some value at loading time. Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski marius.gor...@gmail.com Acked-by: Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu --- v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 +-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to get the rest of these to work properly. Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1-v2 patch, right? No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some value at loading time. Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski marius.gor...@gmail.com Acked-by: Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu --- v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 +-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to get the rest of these to work properly. Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1-v2 patch, right? No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second set of patches v2, which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled v2 so I thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who has to decipher things like this when you send them out... thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second set of patches v2, which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled v2 so I thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who has to decipher things like this when you send them out... For Mariusz's defense, this was his first batch. He didn't feel comfortable and asked me how to proceed when sending a series and I forgot to warn him about the v2 as initially I didn't think there would be a v2, and after I obviously forgot I didn't speak about that. So I share some responsibility for this one. Mariusz, if you need some help, tell me so. Regards, Willy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:14:06PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second set of patches v2, which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled v2 so I thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who has to decipher things like this when you send them out... For Mariusz's defense, this was his first batch. He didn't feel comfortable and asked me how to proceed when sending a series and I forgot to warn him about the v2 as initially I didn't think there would be a v2, and after I obviously forgot I didn't speak about that. So I share some responsibility for this one. I wasn't trying to make anyone feel bad here, just trying to explain why I got this all messed up on my end. Mariusz, consider this a chance to learn how to rebase your patches, a very common task for kernel developers to have to do :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some value at loading time. Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski marius.gor...@gmail.com Acked-by: Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu --- v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 +-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to get the rest of these to work properly. Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1 and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1-v2 patch, right? No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4 or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please. And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second set of patches v2, which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled v2 so I thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who has to decipher things like this when you send them out... I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963 Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922 And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653 Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do. BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied. thanks, greg k-h Cheers, Mariusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second set of patches v2, which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled v2 so I thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who has to decipher things like this when you send them out... I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963 Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922 And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653 Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do. BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied. Mariusz, for people who have to parse hundreds to thousands of e-mails a day, dealing with non-trivial operation modes like this is never easy. I think (I'll let Greg suggest what he prefers) that the most reliable thing to do *right now* is to rebase your tree on top of Greg's staging tree, and you send the resulting series (what you apply *after* staging) at once, maybe even tagged as v3 to avoid any confusion. Sometimes for the recipient, things apparently as simple as sorting e-mails by subjects to find something can cause some confusion when it's not obvious what replaces what, and tagging with the version or ensuring that each series is different enough helps avoiding this. If you need any help, contact me off-list and I'll gladly help you. Don't worry, issues like this commonly happen and will happen again, whatever you do against them will only reduce the likeliness that they happen again (and that's important to care about this) :-) Thanks, Willy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu wrote: Mariusz, for people who have to parse hundreds to thousands of e-mails a day, dealing with non-trivial operation modes like this is never easy. I think (I'll let Greg suggest what he prefers) that the most reliable thing to do *right now* is to rebase your tree on top of Greg's staging tree, and you send the resulting series (what you apply *after* staging) Actually 'staging-testing' branch would be better: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git/log/?h=staging-testingofs=100 There are 4 patches from Mariusz already applied there. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some > value at loading time. > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau > --- > v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check > > drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 > +-- > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to get the rest of these to work properly. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some value at loading time. Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski marius.gor...@gmail.com Acked-by: Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu --- v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 +-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked. Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to get the rest of these to work properly. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some > value at loading time. > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski Acked-by: Willy Tarreau -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote: Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some value at loading time. Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski marius.gor...@gmail.com Acked-by: Willy Tarreau w...@1wt.eu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
