Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

[Ognjen Galić]

> -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> -#include <linux/module.h>
> -#include <linux/types.h>
> -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> #include <linux/async.h>
> -#include <linux/dmi.h>
> #include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/dmi.h>
> +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/suspend.h>
> -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>

These changes completely break my patch:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/

Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this 
is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on 
conflicts compared to my series?

Thanks.

Ognjen

Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote:
> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > -#include <linux/module.h>
> > -#include <linux/types.h>
> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> > #include <linux/async.h>
> > -#include <linux/dmi.h>
> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> > +#include <linux/dmi.h>
> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > #include <linux/suspend.h>
> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> 
> These changes completely break my patch:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/
> 
> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this 
> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on 
> conflicts compared to my series?

Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael.

The usual approach, how I understand the process, the first pushed is
first served, and a quite normal situation that the one, which had been
send later, comes to repository first. But see above, we definitely rely
on maintainer's decision here.

P.S. AFAIU both series are rebased on top of linux-pm, correct? (At
least I'm sure about this one)

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote:
>> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> > -#include <linux/module.h>
>> > -#include <linux/types.h>
>> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> > #include <linux/async.h>
>> > -#include <linux/dmi.h>
>> > #include <linux/delay.h>
>> > +#include <linux/dmi.h>
>> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> > +#include <linux/module.h>
>> > #include <linux/slab.h>
>> > #include <linux/suspend.h>
>> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
>> > +#include <linux/types.h>
>>
>> These changes completely break my patch:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/
>>
>> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
>> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
>> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this
>> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on
>> conflicts compared to my series?
>
> Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael.

Right, I still need to convince myself that the Ognjen's series
actually works in all cases which I'm not quite sure about ATM.

> The usual approach, how I understand the process, the first pushed is
> first served,

Right, and the first pushed one need not be the first submitted one, of course.

> and a quite normal situation that the one, which had been
> send later, comes to repository first. But see above, we definitely rely
> on maintainer's decision here.
>
> P.S. AFAIU both series are rebased on top of linux-pm, correct? (At
> least I'm sure about this one)

I prefer stuff based on the Linus' tree, however, as that often makes
it more straightforward to handle it for me.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

[Ognjen Galić]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:40:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote:
> >> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> > -#include <linux/module.h>
> >> > -#include <linux/types.h>
> >> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> >> > #include <linux/async.h>
> >> > -#include <linux/dmi.h>
> >> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/dmi.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> >> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> >> > #include <linux/suspend.h>
> >> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> >>
> >> These changes completely break my patch:
> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/
> >>
> >> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
> >> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
> >> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this
> >> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on
> >> conflicts compared to my series?
> >
> > Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael.
> 
> Right, I still need to convince myself that the Ognjen's series
> actually works in all cases which I'm not quite sure about ATM.

What edge cases are you concerned about?

> 
> > The usual approach, how I understand the process, the first pushed is
> > first served,
> 
> Right, and the first pushed one need not be the first submitted one, of course.
> 
> > and a quite normal situation that the one, which had been
> > send later, comes to repository first. But see above, we definitely rely
> > on maintainer's decision here.
> >
> > P.S. AFAIU both series are rebased on top of linux-pm, correct? (At
> > least I'm sure about this one)

Incorrect, mine is rebased on Linus's tree.

> 
> I prefer stuff based on the Linus' tree, however, as that often makes
> it more straightforward to handle it for me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael

Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Ognjen Galić <smclt30p@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:40:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote:
>> >> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> >> > -#include <linux/module.h>
>> >> > -#include <linux/types.h>
>> >> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/async.h>
>> >> > -#include <linux/dmi.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/delay.h>
>> >> > +#include <linux/dmi.h>
>> >> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> >> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> >> > +#include <linux/module.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/slab.h>
>> >> > #include <linux/suspend.h>
>> >> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
>> >> > +#include <linux/types.h>
>> >>
>> >> These changes completely break my patch:
>> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/
>> >>
>> >> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
>> >> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
>> >> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this
>> >> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on
>> >> conflicts compared to my series?
>> >
>> > Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael.
>>
>> Right, I still need to convince myself that the Ognjen's series
>> actually works in all cases which I'm not quite sure about ATM.
>
> What edge cases are you concerned about?

Initialization ordering, basically.

It appears to work only under specific assumptions that are not
guaranteed to be satisfied universally, but I need to walk though it
again to check that.

Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

[Ognjen Galić]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:06:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Ognjen Galić <smclt30p@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:40:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> >> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote:
> >> >> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/module.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/types.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/async.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/dmi.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/dmi.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/suspend.h>
> >> >> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> >> >>
> >> >> These changes completely break my patch:
> >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/
> >> >>
> >> >> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
> >> >> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
> >> >> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this
> >> >> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on
> >> >> conflicts compared to my series?
> >> >
> >> > Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael.
> >>
> >> Right, I still need to convince myself that the Ognjen's series
> >> actually works in all cases which I'm not quite sure about ATM.
> >
> > What edge cases are you concerned about?
> 
> Initialization ordering, basically.
> 
> It appears to work only under specific assumptions that are not
> guaranteed to be satisfied universally, but I need to walk though it
> again to check that.

What are you concerned about? Race conditions in the hooking portions?

Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

[Ognjen Galić]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:06:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Ognjen Galić <smclt30p@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:40:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> >> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote:
> >> >> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/module.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/types.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/async.h>
> >> >> > -#include <linux/dmi.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/dmi.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> >> >> > #include <linux/suspend.h>
> >> >> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
> >> >> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> >> >>
> >> >> These changes completely break my patch:
> >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/
> >> >>
> >> >> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
> >> >> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
> >> >> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this
> >> >> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on
> >> >> conflicts compared to my series?
> >> >
> >> > Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael.
> >>
> >> Right, I still need to convince myself that the Ognjen's series
> >> actually works in all cases which I'm not quite sure about ATM.
> >
> > What edge cases are you concerned about?
> 
> Initialization ordering, basically.
> 
> It appears to work only under specific assumptions that are not
> guaranteed to be satisfied universally, but I need to walk though it
> again to check that.

Well, any updates? It's been a while.

Re: [2/4] ACPI / battery: reorder headers alphabetically

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Ognjen Galić <smclt30p@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:06:47AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Ognjen Galić <smclt30p@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:40:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Andy Shevchenko
>> >> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 2018-01-13 at 12:53 +0100, Ognjen Galić wrote:
>> >> >> > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> >> >> > -#include <linux/module.h>
>> >> >> > -#include <linux/types.h>
>> >> >> > -#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> >> >> > #include <linux/async.h>
>> >> >> > -#include <linux/dmi.h>
>> >> >> > #include <linux/delay.h>
>> >> >> > +#include <linux/dmi.h>
>> >> >> > +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> >> >> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> >> >> > +#include <linux/module.h>
>> >> >> > #include <linux/slab.h>
>> >> >> > #include <linux/suspend.h>
>> >> >> > -#include <asm/unaligned.h>
>> >> >> > +#include <linux/types.h>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> These changes completely break my patch:
>> >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10142157/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can we please postpone this patch until I hear back from Rafael
>> >> >> about my series, as my series does some of the things this patch
>> >> >> series does (like defining pr_fmt to shorten log prints) and this
>> >> >> is a much smaller changeset and would require small changes on
>> >> >> conflicts compared to my series?
>> >> >
>> >> > Definitely on both series we need to hear from Rafael.
>> >>
>> >> Right, I still need to convince myself that the Ognjen's series
>> >> actually works in all cases which I'm not quite sure about ATM.
>> >
>> > What edge cases are you concerned about?
>>
>> Initialization ordering, basically.
>>
>> It appears to work only under specific assumptions that are not
>> guaranteed to be satisfied universally, but I need to walk though it
>> again to check that.
>
> Well, any updates? It's been a while.

Right, sorry about that.

I've been traveling lately (actually I'm still on my way home), but
I'll do my best to get to your patches as soon as I'm back.