[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00b3447d-ead2-c5c6-c38f-94d38fc8040b@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 21:01:23 +0000
From: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: "andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"brgl@...ev.pl" <brgl@...ev.pl>, "maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
Ben Brown <Ben.Brown@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Avoid side effects in gpio_is_visible()
On 15/05/23 18:43, andy.shevchenko@...il.com wrote:
> Sun, May 14, 2023 at 09:57:58PM +0000, Chris Packham kirjoitti:
>> On 12/05/23 19:24, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:28:06PM +1200, Chris Packham wrote:
> ...
>
>>> You need a better explanation as to why this is an issue. What does the
>>> warning look like for example?
>> Ironically I had that in my first attempt to address the issue but was
>> told it was too much detail. So now I've gone too far the other way.
>> I'll include it in the response I'm about to send to LinusW.
> You have been (implicitly) told to reduce the scope of the details to have
> the only important ones, removing the traceback completely wasn't on the
> table.
>
> Citation: "Besides the very noisy traceback in the commit message (read
> https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#backtraces-in-commit-messages"
Yes fair point. I just over compensated an thought the explanation of
warning in gpiochip_disable_irq() was sufficient.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists