Re: [PATCH] connector: remove duplicated code in cn_call_callback()
Hi everyone 04.03.2014, 00:39, "David Miller" : > From: Alexey Khoroshilov > Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 00:00:56 +0400 > >> There were a couple of patches fixing the same bug that >> results in duplicated err = 0; assignment. >> The patch removes one of them. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Khoroshilov > > Applied to net-next, thank you. Thank you -- 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] w1-gpio: handle of_get_gpio() returning -EPROBE_DEFER better
Hi 14.02.2014, 02:05, "Uwe Kleine-König" : > of_get_gpio() might return -EPROBE_DEFER meaning that the driver > providing the gpio isn't ready yet. If that happens for the first gpio > the resulting kernel output without this patch is: > > w1-gpio somename: Failed to parse DT > platform somename: Driver w1-gpio requests probe deferral > > The first message is misleading and so is suppressed with this patch. > > Further if determining the gpio to switch the external pullup yields > -EPROBE_DEFER this error should be passed back to the caller instead of > just continuing without pullup. > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König I'm ok with this patch, but I virtually do not understand what it does :) Since I know nothing about device trees. But yet it looks innocent enough to merge. -- 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] w1: do not unlock unheld list_mutex in __w1_remove_master_device()
Hi everyone 07.05.2014, 03:49, "David Fries" : > Acked-by: David Fries > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 01:26:04AM +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: > >> w1_process_callbacks() expects to be called with dev->list_mutex held, >> but it is the fact only in w1_process(). __w1_remove_master_device() >> calls w1_process_callbacks() after it releases list_mutex. >> >> The patch fixes __w1_remove_master_device() to acquire list_mutex >> for w1_process_callbacks(). >> >> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org). >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Khoroshilov Thanks for this fix Acked-by: Evgeniy Polyakov -- 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 0/4] w1: refcnt fix, skip non-error send, docs
Hi 04.02.2014, 09:51, "David Fries" : > Help me understand what the protocol is supposed to be. Assuming > there aren't any errors, is there supposed to be a > w1_netlink_send_error generated reply per netlink packet (cn_msg), per > w1_netlink_msg, or per w1_netlink_cmd? reply should be sent per cmd to specify each command status If there is no cmd in request or we didn't get to it (like failed to reset device), we should send error. Depending on how w1-msg + (optional) w1-cmd are packed, client can detect what exact error happend > What about the cn_msg seq and ack values? I assume the kernel > response should carry the same seq number as the request, but what > should the ack be set to? reply ack is seq + 1 seq is the same to highlight request it belongs to -- 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 0/4] w1: refcnt fix, skip non-error send, docs
Hi 07.02.2014, 10:00, "David Fries" : > Here's a patch to implement that. Is this what you have in mind? > > From 4ed65d81b0121a8c191a9833d041484e9097198b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: David Fries > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:45:05 -0600 > Subject: [PATCH] w1: correct cn_msg ack, no change or seq + 1 > > Netlink messages sent from the kernel consists of kernel generated > notifications for adds or removes, the error message (also indicates > the message has been processed), and the messages that have data to > return. The cn_msg ack is left alone for the first two, and when > returning data it is the sequence number + 1. Modifying the code to > the protocol standard. > > Signed-off-by: David Fries Yes, it looks right. Can you also check that protocol documentation is correct? -- 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 0/4] w1: refcnt fix, skip non-error send, docs
08.02.2014, 02:25, "David Fries" : >> Can you also check that protocol documentation is correct? > > Documentation/connector/connector.txt ? I found it a little unclear, > I'll see what I can do. No, I meant Documentation/w1 -- 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/
