linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: core: remove the function power_saving_wk

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: <3091070.onRVGqex5P@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 20 Sep 2021 15:54:14 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        saurav.girepunje@...mail.com, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        phil@...lpotter.co.uk, straube.linux@...il.com,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: core: remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl

On Monday, September 20, 2021 2:39:10 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:31:28PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > On Monday, September 20, 2021 1:32:21 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > On Monday, September 20, 2021 12:36:06 PM CEST Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje 
wrote:
> > > > > > > > Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling
> > > > > > > > the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call 
> > directly
> > > > > > > > rtw_ps_processor().
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > []
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Also does not apply to my tree.  Please rebase against my 
staging-
> > next
> > > > > > > branch and resend.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > thanks,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > greg k-h
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you 
help 
> > me 
> > > > to
> > > > > > understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always 
need 
> > to
> > > > > > rebase against staging-next..!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, you should.  When you are working on code that lots of other 
> > people
> > > > > are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just 
need to
> > > > > stay on top of it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > thanks,
> > > > > 
> > > > > greg k-h
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, Greg. I'm confused... :(
> > > > 
> > > > As far as I know, everyone here make patches for staging-testing.
> > > 
> > > Nope.  It's only you.
> > 
> > And Saurav (at least) :)
> > 
> 
> Nope.  Saurav is working against something old.  You can see the
> #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P stuff that was removed in commit 102243f893ec
> ("staging: r8188eu: Remove conditionals CONFIG_88EU_{AP_MODE,P2P}") was
> applied.
> 

Oh, I didn't notice that he was working against something old. 

My attention was drawn only by the fact that Greg talked about staging-next, 
while I was expecting something like "please rebase and resend against my 
current staging-testing".

> > I've been misled and in turn I misled Pavel. This is due to a guide in 
> > kernelnewbies.org that explicitly says to use staging-testing:
> > 
> > https://kernelnewbies.org/OutreachyfirstpatchSetup
> > 
> > In that page the is a section ("Set up your Linux kernel code 
repository") 
> > which says: "[] Then use the revision control system called git to clone 
Greg 
> > Kroah-Hartman's staging tree repository: git clone -b staging-testing 
git://
> > git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git".
> > 
> 
> Huh...
> 
> Those aren't *bad* instructions.  Working against testing-next is fine,
> but just be aware that it can rebase.

Good to know. For what the series Pavel and I submitted we'll complete our 
work, that is sending v9, against current staging-testing. I suppose we'd 
better stay consistent.

For new work, since you make notice that we have to "be aware that it 
[staging-testing] can rebase", we'll switch to staging-next.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Regards,

Fabio 

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
>