linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 WIP 1/4] parport: add device-model to parport subsystem

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: <20150503063733.GA12351@sudip-PC>
Date:	Sun, 3 May 2015 12:07:33 +0530
From:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 WIP 1/4] parport: add device-model to parport subsystem

On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 04:20:53PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Sudip,
> 
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:00:20 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > another WIP for your review. since this is not a formal patch for
> > applying so writing the comments here.
> 
> You should still provide a proper description as if the patch was ready
> to be committed. Ultimately the descriptions are going to be part of
> the commits, so they need to be reviewed too.
> 
> The history is good to have too for now, but it should go after the
> "---" separator, as it won't be part of the commit.
should i then send a v5 of WIP with proper commit message?
I will mention the WIP history as comments in my formal patch also.
And I guess, formal patch will take some time. After Alan has tested
I need to work on the documentation also.
> 
> > v4: use of is_parport() is introduced to check the type of device that
> > has been passed to probe or match_port.
> > 
<snip>
> > 
> > v2 had one more problem: it was creating some ghost parallel ports
> > during port probing. from v3 we have the use of parport_del_port
> > to remove registerd ports if probing has failed.
> 
> Spelling: "registered".
> 
> (As pointed out by ./scripts/checkpatch.pl - did you run it on each
> patch?)
while working on the code I will be checking with:
git diff | scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict -
so the change in the code is properly checkpatch tested.
and for formal submission of patches I will check again after writing
the commit message. But since this was just a WIP and not a formal
patch submission so I have not checked after writing the comments.

> 
> > 
<snip>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@...torindia.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/parport/parport_pc.c |   4 +-
> >  drivers/parport/procfs.c     |  15 ++-
> >  drivers/parport/share.c      | 266 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >  include/linux/parport.h      |  41 ++++++-
> >  4 files changed, 308 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > (...)
> 
> Patch tested, no functional regression found.
> 
> Tested-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Thanks Jean.
Should i add your Tested-by: to the main patch and the patch
concerning the changes to i2c-parport?

regards
sudip
> 
> -- 
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
--
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/