[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230609212552.5o6aopv7iicej3kn@intel.intel>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 23:25:52 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: "wsa@...nel.org" <wsa@...nel.org>,
Robert Hancock <robert.hancock@...ian.com>,
"michal.simek@....com" <michal.simek@....com>,
"shubhraj@...inx.com" <shubhraj@...inx.com>,
"marex@...x.de" <marex@...x.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: xiic: Don't try to handle more interrupt events
after error
Hi Wolfram,
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 05:32:42PM +0200, wsa@...nel.org wrote:
>
> > I think the patch is correct and I will ack it:
> >
> > Acked-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
> >
> > I think, though, that this needs a proper fix and testing, in
> > order to cover all the possible combinations. The scenario you
> > highlighted is indeed one, but not only, potential situation that
> > could arise.
> >
> > Can I just ask you to write a bit more in the comment to
> > highlight the possible failure?
>
> I tend to apply it to for-current because it improves the situation.
> Further improvements could be made incrementally? D'accord everyone?
>
OK with that!
Thanks,
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists