From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Subject: Re: [RFC+CFT] Use word operations in bitops Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:32:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20110118153257.GA10686@pengutronix.de> References: <20110116121911.GB27542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110117100857.GS6917@pengutronix.de> <20110117104618.GB18626@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:49367 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752604Ab1ARPdE (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:33:04 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110117104618.GB18626@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi Russell, On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:46:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrot= e: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:08:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:19:11PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux = wrote: > > > This does need a fair amount of testing before it can be merged, = so I'd > > > like to see a number of Tested-by's against this patch. Please a= lso > > > indicate whether you tested on LE or BE or both, which filesystem= s, and > > > whether they were read-only mounted or read-write mounted. > > You could make life a bit easier (at least for us at Pengutronix, > > probably more) if you had a branch with a defined name for patches = like > > these. We could add that to our daily test then. >=20 > No, because then it's not possible to properly tie down what has been > tested and what hasn't. >=20 > The advantage of emailed patches is that when people reply to them, y= ou > have a better idea that the patch to which they're replying to is the > one they tested. >=20 > Such as in this case where the follow-up patch hasn't received any > replies, and so I can't add the one received tested-by to the follow-= up > patch. With the git approach, I wouldn't know what was tested unless > you included the commit IDs each time. >=20 > And let's face it - if it was tested daily, are you going to go throu= gh > the hastle of digging out the commit IDs and emailing each day to say > what was tested? That sounds to me like a _lot_ more work than testi= ng > the occasional emailed patch. I maybe wouldn't report each success, I would report if my test fails. You can consider this more or less valuable. Still I think given the ease this could be done it's worth it. That's how linux-next works, too. Best regards Uwe --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig = | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/= | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:32:57 +0100 Subject: [RFC+CFT] Use word operations in bitops In-Reply-To: <20110117104618.GB18626@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20110116121911.GB27542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110117100857.GS6917@pengutronix.de> <20110117104618.GB18626@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110118153257.GA10686@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Russell, On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:46:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:08:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:19:11PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > This does need a fair amount of testing before it can be merged, so I'd > > > like to see a number of Tested-by's against this patch. Please also > > > indicate whether you tested on LE or BE or both, which filesystems, and > > > whether they were read-only mounted or read-write mounted. > > You could make life a bit easier (at least for us at Pengutronix, > > probably more) if you had a branch with a defined name for patches like > > these. We could add that to our daily test then. > > No, because then it's not possible to properly tie down what has been > tested and what hasn't. > > The advantage of emailed patches is that when people reply to them, you > have a better idea that the patch to which they're replying to is the > one they tested. > > Such as in this case where the follow-up patch hasn't received any > replies, and so I can't add the one received tested-by to the follow-up > patch. With the git approach, I wouldn't know what was tested unless > you included the commit IDs each time. > > And let's face it - if it was tested daily, are you going to go through > the hastle of digging out the commit IDs and emailing each day to say > what was tested? That sounds to me like a _lot_ more work than testing > the occasional emailed patch. I maybe wouldn't report each success, I would report if my test fails. You can consider this more or less valuable. Still I think given the ease this could be done it's worth it. That's how linux-next works, too. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |