[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16148020.1MiD057Pog@suse>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 14:34:31 +0100
From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>
Cc: outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: axis-fifo: initialize timeouts in probe only
On mercoledì 15 marzo 2023 13:32:55 CET Khadija Kamran wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 04:57:47PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:31:21PM +0100, Fabio wrote:
> > > On martedì 14 marzo 2023 21:43:40 CET Alison Schofield wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:07:10PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > > > > Module parameter, read_timeout, can only be set at the loading time.
> > > > > As
> > > > > it can only be modified once, initialize read_timeout once in the
> > > > > probe
> > > > > function.
> > > > > As a result, only use read_timeout as the last argument in
> > > > > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() call.
> > > > >
> > > > > Same goes for write_timeout.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Looks like this is [PATCH v5] and needs a changelog.
> > >
> > > Alison,
> > >
> > > In fact, this is only the second patch that addresses Greg's suggested
> > > refactoring.
> > >
> > > Khadija moved from v3 of "staging: axis-fifo: remove tabs to align
> > > arguments"
> > > to v4 of this completely independent patch. And then back to v1, because
> > > (at
> > > the time of v4) I pointed out to her that she had started working on a
> > > project that has a completely different purpose than the previous one.
> > >
> > > The best course of action would have been to ask Greg to drop the
previous
> > > patches and then reset the numbering of the new job to v1. Unfortunately
I
> > > did not pay attention to how she then managed the numbering following my
> > > observation.
> > >
> > > What would be the best course of action at this point?
> >
> > My guess is that this patch gets ignored because it has a lower version
> > number than a previous patch.
> >
> > Take the feedback given here, and rev to
> > [PATCH v5] staging: axis-fifo: initialize timeouts in probe only
> >
> > Be sure the Changelog, below the --- explains the journey.
> >
> > Changes in v5:
> >
> > Changes in v4:
> >
> > Changes in v3:
>
> > Changes in v2:
> Hey Alison!
> Based on Nathan's feedback I am trying to recompile and send a patch
> without any warnings.
> As suggested by Fabio, I am running "make w=1 -jX" command to see if I
> get any warnings. But it is taking a lot of time, is there any way of
> speeding it up?
> If this doesn't work then I have to follow the steps to reproduce in lkp
> mail as you said before.
> After dealing with these warnings I will send a [PATCH v5], following
> your instructions above.
> Kindly, let me know if I am on the wrong track.
> Thank you!
>
> Regards,
> Khadija
>
> > > Fabio
Aside from what I said and asked for with the other message of this same
thread, please take note that you can build a specific module if you prefer
not to re-build the whole kernel and other modules at the same time.
I'm pretty sure that the instructions to do so are in the OutreachyFirstPatch
tutorial.
If they are not there, please let us know.
Fabio
Powered by blists - more mailing lists