[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130827112746.2e5abc73@xhacker>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:27:46 +0800
From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
To: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
CC: "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com"
<gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
"thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com"
<thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
"ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com"
<ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
"mturquette@...aro.org" <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com" <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] arm: mvebu: fix resource leak
Dear Jason,
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:22:37 -0700
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:01:20AM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > Dear Jason,
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:45:23 -0700
> > Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 07:36:55PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > > These patches try to fix resource leak by adding missing
> > > > of_node_put(), iounmap or using devm_ioremap_resource() if available.
> > > >
> > > > v4:
> > > > - re-generate since Ezequiel's patches add DT support to the
> > > > mvebu-mbus driver
> > >
> > > grrr. I hate to ask this, but can you please rebase patches 1 and 2
> > > against mvebu/fixes-non-critical? No need to add back in the mvebu-mbus
> > > hunk.
> >
> > patch 1 also fixes one similar trivial issue introduced since
> > 994c8c94b419e "ARM: mvebu: Remove the harcoded BootROM window allocation"
> > in linux-next tree
> >
> > patch 2 is updated to fix similar trivial issue introduce since
> > 6839cfa82f99 "bus: mvebu-mbus: Introduce device tree binding"
> >
> > These two commits aren't included in mvebu/fixes-non-criticial yet. Could
> > you please give suggestion?
>
> Yes, that's correct. We prefer to have patch submitters base off of a
> mainline tag (eg v3.11-rc7). conflicts between patchsets are then
> caught and resolved when branches are merged. If done correctly, the
> merge resolution should be obvious in most cases.
>
> The upstream maintainers _prefer_ to see those conflicts because it
> gives them a better sense of who is tinkering in the same code-paths.
>
> Trying to base patches off of disparate branches in order to
> 'pre-resolve' those conflicts creates unnecessary dependencies and
> non-obvious merge-resolutions.
>
> In this case I asked you base off of mvebu/fixes-non-critical because
> that is where I will be applying them for queueing to arm-soc. You
> could also base off of v3.11-rc7, there's nothing in
> mvebu/fixes-non-critical that should conflict with your changes.
>
Got it. Thanks very much for your excellent explanation.
Will do and send out patches latter.
Best Regards,
Jisheng
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists