patch review

patch review

[James Simmons]

I have been reviewing and testing your patches. I haven't tested them all 
tho. I have tested:

annotate-some-variables-in-vesafb.patch
fbcmapc-mark-structs-const-or.patch
gregkh-driver-fb-device.patch
ioremap-balanced-with-iounmap-for-drivers-video-vesafb.patch
various-fbdev-files-mark-structs-fix.patch
various-fbdev-files-mark-structs.patch

I had no problem with them. I will test the atyfb patches tomorrow.
Please drop the 

fbmem-is-bootup-logo-broken-for-monochrome-lcd.patch

It does address several problems but there are more problmes then that. I 
like to send out another patch to would address all those issues.
Thanks.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV

Patch review

[Peter Clifton]

Hi guys,

I've sent three patches to the list for review recently, and posed a
question about possible buggy palette handling. Two of the patches I
sent fix bugs (one "real", one a build issue), and there is a one
clean-up.

I've had no replies on any issue yet. I would appreciate if someone
could take a quick look and ACK / NAK the patches.

I'm only a technical user (Although I do some OSS software development
in my free time), and it is somewhat disheartening when I've taken the
extra steps to produce a patch to fix the issues, for them to be
(seemingly) ignored.

If you want me to go away and file bug-reports, and attach the patches,
I'll do it, but these are simple issues - and if people would pick up
and commit the patches I've sent, it saves me a lot of time fighting
bugzilla.

It was me who "discovered" the TV-out logic on the Cantiga platforms
seem to require a "0" in the state-change detection enable bits, but I
see I got no credit for that detective work in the eventual patch Zhao
Yakui worked up once with access to the HW specs / BIOS code.

PS.. Wouldn't it be nice to get some of that reference BIOS code opened
up?


Regards,

-- 
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)
Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me)

Re: Patch review

[Matt Turner]

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Peter Clifton <pcjc2@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've sent three patches to the list for review recently, and posed a
> question about possible buggy palette handling. Two of the patches I
> sent fix bugs (one "real", one a build issue), and there is a one
> clean-up.
>
> I've had no replies on any issue yet. I would appreciate if someone
> could take a quick look and ACK / NAK the patches.
>
> I'm only a technical user (Although I do some OSS software development
> in my free time), and it is somewhat disheartening when I've taken the
> extra steps to produce a patch to fix the issues, for them to be
> (seemingly) ignored.
>
> If you want me to go away and file bug-reports, and attach the patches,
> I'll do it, but these are simple issues - and if people would pick up
> and commit the patches I've sent, it saves me a lot of time fighting
> bugzilla.
>
> It was me who "discovered" the TV-out logic on the Cantiga platforms
> seem to require a "0" in the state-change detection enable bits, but I
> see I got no credit for that detective work in the eventual patch Zhao
> Yakui worked up once with access to the HW specs / BIOS code.
>
> PS.. Wouldn't it be nice to get some of that reference BIOS code opened
> up?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Peter Clifton
>
> Electrical Engineering Division,
> Engineering Department,
> University of Cambridge,
> 9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
> Cambridge
> CB3 0FA
>
> Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)
> Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me)

Sorry that I'm not going to be of any use reviewing these patches.

I've got a similar experience--I actually had two patches /accepted/
and supposedly tucked away in a branch for merging after 2.11 was
released. They've never been merged. I've pinged Carl at least twice,
heard nothing back.

Not sure what's going on.

Matt

Re: Patch review

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1855 bytes --]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:28:22 +0100, Peter Clifton <pcjc2@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> I've sent three patches to the list for review recently, and posed a
> question about possible buggy palette handling. Two of the patches I
> sent fix bugs (one "real", one a build issue), and there is a one
> clean-up.
> 
> I've had no replies on any issue yet. I would appreciate if someone
> could take a quick look and ACK / NAK the patches.

Hi Peter,

For my part at least, I was on vacation last week, (and a bit swamped
before that). I'm coming out of that now and already have your "Graphics
Corruption Issues" patch tagged to review and commit soon.

> If you want me to go away and file bug-reports, and attach the patches,
> I'll do it, but these are simple issues - and if people would pick up
> and commit the patches I've sent, it saves me a lot of time fighting
> bugzilla.

I prefer email myself as well. One thing that does help is that if you
want to follow-up to ask about a specific patch that seems to have been
missed, if you do it as a reply to the mail then that helps.

For example, I believe that the "graphics corruption issues" patch is
one you are referring to. And I'm guessing that "Fix out of tree builds"
is the build issue. But I don't know what the third issue was.

> It was me who "discovered" the TV-out logic on the Cantiga platforms
> seem to require a "0" in the state-change detection enable bits, but I
> see I got no credit for that detective work in the eventual patch Zhao
> Yakui worked up once with access to the HW specs / BIOS code.

That is unfortunate. It would definitely be preferable to have
everyone's contribution noted.

> PS.. Wouldn't it be nice to get some of that reference BIOS code opened
> up?

I agree that it would be quite nice.

-Carl

-- 
carl.d.worth@intel.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: Patch review

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 698 bytes --]

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:48:18 -0400, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got a similar experience--I actually had two patches /accepted/
> and supposedly tucked away in a branch for merging after 2.11 was
> released. They've never been merged. I've pinged Carl at least twice,
> heard nothing back.
> 
> Not sure what's going on.

Hi Matt,

That was entirely my fault.

The patches are still there on my "after-2.11" branch. And after your
most recent ping I did try to merge them and found that they now
conflict.

I'm sorry about that. I can try to resolve the conflicts, but I will
likely want your final review of the result.

-Carl

-- 
carl.d.worth@intel.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Patch review

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

Hi,

I know the "development process and responsibilities" was the main topic 
during the last media summit. Unfortunately I haven't attended it, from 
the etherpad notes I also cannot quite conclude what decisions have been 
made. Have any measures been discussed and agreed upon for cases, when 
patches don't get reviewed for many months, adding up to more than a year 
(in this specific case the first version submitted in June 2016)?

Thanks
Guennadi

Re: Patch review

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Guennadi,

On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 17:07:00 EET Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I know the "development process and responsibilities" was the main topic
> during the last media summit. Unfortunately I haven't attended it, from
> the etherpad notes I also cannot quite conclude what decisions have been
> made. Have any measures been discussed and agreed upon for cases, when
> patches don't get reviewed for many months, adding up to more than a year
> (in this specific case the first version submitted in June 2016)?

I assume you're talking about the "[PATCH 0/2 v6] uvcvideo: asynchronous 
controls" series, is that correct ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: Patch review

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

Hi Laurent,

Yes, that's correct.

Thanks
Guennadi

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

> Hi Guennadi,
> 
> On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 17:07:00 EET Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I know the "development process and responsibilities" was the main topic
> > during the last media summit. Unfortunately I haven't attended it, from
> > the etherpad notes I also cannot quite conclude what decisions have been
> > made. Have any measures been discussed and agreed upon for cases, when
> > patches don't get reviewed for many months, adding up to more than a year
> > (in this specific case the first version submitted in June 2016)?
> 
> I assume you're talking about the "[PATCH 0/2 v6] uvcvideo: asynchronous 
> controls" series, is that correct ?
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Laurent Pinchart
> 

Re: Patch review

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:21:27 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> escreveu:

> Hi Guennadi,
> 
> On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 17:07:00 EET Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I know the "development process and responsibilities" was the main topic
> > during the last media summit. Unfortunately I haven't attended it, from
> > the etherpad notes I also cannot quite conclude what decisions have been
> > made. Have any measures been discussed and agreed upon for cases, when
> > patches don't get reviewed for many months, adding up to more than a year
> > (in this specific case the first version submitted in June 2016)?  
> 
> I assume you're talking about the "[PATCH 0/2 v6] uvcvideo: asynchronous 
> controls" series, is that correct ?

What's the situation of such patch review? In case you doesn't have the
original e-mail anymore, I asked Guennadi on IRC to resubmit it, in order
to make easier for us to review/comment about any issues there, if any.

Regards,
Mauro

Thanks,
Mauro