[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82de0f5e-2382-e2ae-ec70-392cc95502fc@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 14:07:57 -0500
From: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>
To: Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Cleanups in "next" tree
Pavel
On 4/3/20 1:45 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> On 4/3/20 12:57 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> On Sun 2020-03-22 14:35:56, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> On 3/22/20 12:59 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I've commited some cleanups into LED tree ( git/pavel/linux-leds.git
>>>> branch for-next ), if someone wants to review them.
>>> You abused your maintainer power by bypassing the usual patch
>>> submission procedure. Please remove the patches from linux-next
>>> and submit them officially for discussion. I would have some objections
>>> to them.
>> I'm sorry I failed to meet your high expectations... But I don't
>> believe I done anything completely outside of usual kernel procedures.
> I believe code review is quite usual kernel procedure.
>
>> Could you list the patches and objections you have?
> I already expressed my concerns regarding Turris Omnia patch.
>
> My comments regarding remaining patches:
>
> - "Make label "white:power" to be consistent with"
>
> I disagree here. "system" was OK.
>
> - "Warn about old defines that probably should not be used."
>
> Obsolete is only LED_FULL, so the comment is in wrong line
I would prefer to have the commit sha that obsoleted the LED_FULL to be
referenced in the commit message so we have traceability.
Dan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists