lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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.gorski@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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-11-27 21:21    [W:3.609 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site