linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/hwmon: Use pr_fmt and pr

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:46:08 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
CC:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@....nl>,
	Alistair John Strachan <alistair@...zero.co.uk>,
	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
	"Mark M. Hoffman" <mhoffman@...htlink.com>,
	Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Juerg Haefliger <juergh@...il.com>,
	Eric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net>,
	Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>,
	Roger Lucas <vt8231@...denengine.co.uk>,
	"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/hwmon: Use pr_fmt and pr_<level>

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:34:38AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
[ ... ]
> 
> * This isn't the kind of fixes we want to cherry-pick from. We're not
>   fixing any bug here, are we? I certainly hope that a real bug fix
>   wouldn't be hidden within a larger patch, but would have the separate
>   patch it deserves. At which point we no longer care if the rest is
>   one large patch or one patch per driver.
> 
Actually, I do this kind of thing all the time when backporting.
It is easier to apply all patches applied to a driver than skipping
the cleanup patches, to avoid conflicts when cherry-picking functional
patches. The tendency for large cleanup patches affecting several drivers
and modules created trouble for me several times already.

> * I don't see us reverting that kind of patch either. If we don't like
>   the changes for whatever reason, we don't take them in the first
>   place. Once in, we're not going to change our minds.
> 
> * 32 patches for a simple cleanup is actually a lot more work for me
>   than a single large patch. It's cheaper for me to do minor
>   adjustments to a large patch than to apply 32 patches individually.
> 
Good point. I am using git all the time, so it isn't that much of a
problem for me. Our mailer problems (the tabs replacing stuff) are
much more annoying.

> * That being said, now that the hwmon subsystem maintainer is a shared
>   duty between Guenter and myself, there's no single place where we can
>   keep a patch touching many drivers and ensure it doesn't conflict
>   with the changes in the other tree. But I would think   this is
>   something for Gunter and myself to sort out, not patch contributors.
> 
> I currently have pending patches to the following hwmon drivers in my
> tree: adt7475, ams, asc7621, hdaps, it87, k8temp, lm75, lm85, lm90,
> pcf8591, s3c-hwmon, w83795. Two of these are affected by Joe's
> patch(es). Guenter, what about you?
> 
coretemp, pkgtemp, via-cputemp, ltc4261 (new), lis3, hp_accel

Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/