[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2e5e6280-eaa2-480f-b89c-c9b832328d07@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:23:30 +0200
From: Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@...hat.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Böhler <witcher@...edspace.de>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] drm/panic: allow verbose boolean for clarity
On 14/10/2024 18:59, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 10:54 AM Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> With the suggestions from Alice Ryhl to not introduce a return, and use
>> expect:
>
> +1 to both.
>
> `expect` (here and the other ones I suggested) require `rust-next`, so
> if this goes through DRM, then we can clean this up later. Otherwise,
> if you prefer `rust-next`, we can change them to `expect` already.
I don't plan to touch drm_panic_qr.rs, so I think it's better if this
series goes through rust-next, to avoid an extra cleanup step later.
--
Jocelyn
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Miguel
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists