[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71637721f64b877255264d36293208402ef1a873.camel@calian.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:13:02 +0000
From: Robert Hancock <robert.hancock@...ian.com>
To: "wsa@...nel.org" <wsa@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"shubhraj@...inx.com" <shubhraj@...inx.com>,
"michal.simek@....com" <michal.simek@....com>,
"marex@...x.de" <marex@...x.de>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"andi.shyti@...nel.org" <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: xiic: Don't try to handle more interrupt events
after error
On Fri, 2023-06-09 at 23:25 +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> 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
Just checking on this patch, was it merged? It shows accepted in
Patchwork, but I'm not seeing it in the Git tree.
--
Robert Hancock <robert.hancock@...ian.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists