Message-ID: <47813c01-39b2-4e5e-bb67-1d49788fc613@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:57:18 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
 Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>, James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
 Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Andi Shyti
 <andi.shyti@...nel.org>, Olivia Mackall <olivia@...enic.com>,
 Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
 Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
 Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
 Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-input@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] amba: store owner from modules with
 amba_driver_register()

On 02/04/2024 11:06, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 09:56:17AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> Merging
>>>> =======
>>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack
>>>> and this should go via one tree.
>>>>
>>>> Description
>>>> ===========
>>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to
>>>> set .owner field.
>>>>
>>>> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core
>>>> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit
>>>> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of
>>>> platform_driver_register").
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This
>>> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other
>>> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting
>>> standard patches.
>>
>> Sorry but no. Stop being offensive.
>>
>>> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's.
>>
>> Eh? There is no such logic in there.
>>
>>> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web
>>> (!!!) interface.
>>
>> Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you
>> failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows
>> you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where
>> the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the
>> web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*.
>>
>> The fact is, the web interface is merely a front end interface that
>> generates an email and submits it in the usual way by email - an
>> email that you can perfectly well generate that is *very* close to
>> the standard email that git format-patch generates.
>>
>> The *only* difference is that the patch system wants a KernelVersion:
>> tag in the email _somewhere_ and it doesn't matter where it appears.
>> Git even has support to do this.
>>
>>   git format-patch --add-header="KernelVersion: $foo"
>>
>> Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4
>> and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which
>> tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required
>> because it means when there's problems applying a patch, it gives me
>> the additional information about the base used for the patch (and it
>> keeps on being useful to have.)
>>
>>> That's the response:
>>> -------------
>>> Your patch has not been logged because:
>>>
>>> Error:   Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing
>>>          your patch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Error:   Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or
>>> "---".
>>>
>>> Error:   the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect
>>>          Signed-off-by lines:
>>>
>>>          - author signoff <krzkreg@...il.com> is missing.
>>>
>>>          Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11
>>>          for details on signing off patches.
>>
>> Lots of people use it without a problem. I've just run the parser
>> through its offline tests, and it parses email content correctly.
>> I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but it looks like something
>> pretty serious if it didn't parse the subject line.
>>
>> Rather than getting stressed about it, why don't you send me an email
>> the first time something goes wrong so I can investigate, turn on
>> debugging to capture the problem email?
> 
> ... and I'll also point out one of the biggest problems is people.
> People who think it's more complex than it is, or who can't read
> instructions.

We all read submitting-patches instructions (and many more). A need to
learn one more set of instructions for one more process leads to people
needing to learn 100 different processes for 100 different subsystems.

That's not the way how people should be contributing to Linux kernel.

> 
> For example, trying to tell people to use the standard format subject
> line:
> 
> 	[PATCH ...] blah
> 
> has proven to be hopeless - unless one states to them the exact
> sequence of keys on their keyboard to press - yes, it *really* takes
> that patronising level to get everyone to understand. If one tries to
> do it any other way, then you get stuff like:
> 
> 	"[PATCH ...] ..."
> 
> with the quotes. Or some other stupid variation.
> 
> The patch system is as forgiving as possible. It takes standard git
> formatted patches (with the exception of wanting an additional tag).

The additional tag about kernel version is redundant and not helping
anyone. I doubt you apply patches on top of linux-next or top of
previous release (e.g. v6.8-rc1). Almost every maintainer applies on top
of current RC, so v6.9-rc1 currently, thus version is just unnecessary
obstacle.

> 
> It is possible that bugs creep in - particularly when Debian updates
> get applied and change the way Perl works, but I don't think that's
> what has happened with your situation.
> 
> I _guess_ you're putting the entire email-like output from git
> format-patch as the patch file. That won't work - that isn't a "patch
> file", that is an email/email template, and the patch system will
> attempt to parse that as the patch itself.

Yes, that's what every sane person's workflow is. git format-patch -19
(cover letter goes from branch description).

> 
> I suppose you term "patch" to be the email as well, rather than what
> I interpret it to be, which is only the output of "diff" - call me
> old fashioned but that's what a patch file used to be before the
> waters got muddied by git "patch files".

Well, world is now using git as a standard. It's true there is quilt out
there, but even Andrew I think is going slowly towards git in some parts
of his workflow.

But then even Andrew accepted standard patch from the mailing lists. No
need for any other step, no need for any double submission (one public,
second to patches@...linux or webform) with any other requirement.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists