linux-kernel - Re: [lm-sensors] [RFC PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Convert to be a platform driver

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]

Message-ID: <20140213113313.GL32508@lee--X1>
Date:	Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:33:13 +0000
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [RFC PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Convert to be a
 platform driver

> >>> > -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >>> > -                    const struct i2c_device_id *id);
> >>> > -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
> >>> > -static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client);
> >>> > +static int max6650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev);
> >>> > +static int max6650_init_client(struct platform_device *pdev);
> >>> > +static int max6650_remove(struct platform_device *pdev);
> >>> >  static struct max6650_data *max6650_update_device(struct device *dev);
> >>>
> >>> It would be good to remove these forward declarations in the future.
> >>>
> >>> If no one volunteers I'll happily do it.
> >>
> >> Guenter just did:
> >>
> >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html
> >>
> >> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series
> >> to avoid conflicts:
> >>
> >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041223.html
> >
> As far as I can see, that patch set was not even tested, so how can it
> go in? I was told that any patch should be _runtime_ tested, too.
> Fwiw, I do not have time to test those personally, he would need to
> find someone else if that requirement really holds true.
>
> I would not really like to fix bugs appearing in that code to get my
> features in.
> 
> Also, since my change has been around for 2-3 months now, I would
> really prefer not to be forced to rewrite it again from scratch.
> Surely, you can wait with those, more or less, cosmetic non-runtime
> tested changes?
> 
> This would impose me a lot of additional work again, and I personally
> do not see the benefit of it. In my book at least, feature is over
> internal polishing.

Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree.

I've asked too many people to give you a second chance and asked you
privately to behave yourself and treat others with respect. So far I
haven't seen an ounce of self control or depomacy from you.

This is how it's going to work from now on:

 - You submit a patch
 - It gets reviewed                            <----\
 - You fix up the review comments as requested -----/
 - Non-compliance or arguments with the _experts_ results in:
    `$INTEREST > /dev/null || \
      grep "From: Laszio Papp" ~/.mail | xargs rm -rf`

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/