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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 25 Sep 2021 11:44:18 +0530
From:   Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@...il.com>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     saurav.girepunje@...mail.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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 20/09/21 7:24 pm, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

I will also do rebase to staging-next.

Thanks Greg, Dan for you clarification.
Thanks Fabio for your input .

Regards,
Saurav