linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] clk: tegra: (clk-tegra30) Add missing of_node

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]

Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 08:42:26 +0000
From:   <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To:     <windhl@....com>, <sboyd@...nel.org>, <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
CC:     <jonathanh@...dia.com>, <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>, <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
        <thierry.reding@...il.com>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clk: tegra: (clk-tegra30) Add missing of_node_put()

On 16/06/2022 09:19, Liang He wrote:
> At 2022-06-16 14:00:35, "Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
>> The subject should match historical subjects
>>
>> $ git log --oneline -3 -- drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra30.c
>>
>> shows mostly "clk: tegra: ". Can you also combine this with the other
>> tegra patch? Don't think we need two patches for essentially the same
>> thing.
>>
>> Quoting Liang He (2022-06-15 20:36:22)
>>> In tegra30_clock_init, of_find_matching_node() will return a node
>>> pointer with refcount incremented. We should use of_node_put() when
>>> the node pointer is not used anymore.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Liang He <windhl@....com>
>>> ---
>>>   changelog:
>>>
>>>   v2: use real name for Sob
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>>   v1: fix missing bug
> 
> Sorry for my fault. I have been advised to use real name and I resend a PATCH v2 with my real name, but really with the same patch code.
> 
> So how can I withdraw the first patch or resend other thing? I am confused.
> 
> Can you help me, Conor?

Yeah, sure. I think you're just getting a bit confused by conflicting
responses from different people. Some of the things I said on whatever
the original patch I replied to apply everywhere - like using your real
name or adding changelogs.
However, different subsystem maintainers have a different opinions about
how patches for their subsystem should look. I would imagine that it was
Guenter Roeck that asked you to use the "subsystem: (driver) action"
subject, which is how hwmon patches are done - but not other subsystems.

What Stephen is asking, is that you run
$ git log --oneline -3 -- drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra30.c
to figure out what the subject should be, based on previous subjects.
That's good advice to follow for any patch you send :)

This other comment was:
> Don't think we need two patches for essentially the same thing.

I assume you sent two different patches for the same driver, or the
same directory of drivers?
He's just asking that you squash the two commits together into one
commit.

 From your other email:
> Sorry, what do you mean same subject line comment?
> I add a [PATCH v2] tag when I use 'git format-patch -v 2'.

I assume Stephen meant: the same comments about "(clk-tegra30)"
from this patch apply to that patch too. There's nothing wrong
with having "[PATCH v2]".

> You mean the two commit has same subject content?
> Sorry, I am a beginner to submit patch commit.

Ohh don't worry, we have all been there (and in my case not too
long ago either...)

Hope that helps!
Thanks,
Conor.