From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:22:37 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v4 0/3] arm: mvebu: fix resource leak In-Reply-To: <20130827110120.0a9fab2a@xhacker> References: <1377517018-7716-1-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com> <20130826204523.GD24470@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130827110120.0a9fab2a@xhacker> Message-ID: <20130827032237.GA19598@titan.lakedaemon.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:01:20AM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > Dear Jason, > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:45:23 -0700 > Jason Cooper wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 07:36:55PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > These patches try to fix resource leak by adding missing of_node_put(), > > > iounmap or using devm_ioremap_resource() if available. > > > > > > v4: > > > - re-generate since Ezequiel's patches add DT support to the > > > mvebu-mbus driver > > > > grrr. I hate to ask this, but can you please rebase patches 1 and 2 > > against mvebu/fixes-non-critical? No need to add back in the mvebu-mbus > > hunk. > > patch 1 also fixes one similar trivial issue introduced since 994c8c94b419e > "ARM: mvebu: Remove the harcoded BootROM window allocation" in linux-next tree > > patch 2 is updated to fix similar trivial issue introduce since 6839cfa82f99 > "bus: mvebu-mbus: Introduce device tree binding" > > These two commits aren't included in mvebu/fixes-non-criticial yet. Could you > please give suggestion? Yes, that's correct. We prefer to have patch submitters base off of a mainline tag (eg v3.11-rc7). conflicts between patchsets are then caught and resolved when branches are merged. If done correctly, the merge resolution should be obvious in most cases. The upstream maintainers _prefer_ to see those conflicts because it gives them a better sense of who is tinkering in the same code-paths. Trying to base patches off of disparate branches in order to 'pre-resolve' those conflicts creates unnecessary dependencies and non-obvious merge-resolutions. In this case I asked you base off of mvebu/fixes-non-critical because that is where I will be applying them for queueing to arm-soc. You could also base off of v3.11-rc7, there's nothing in mvebu/fixes-non-critical that should conflict with your changes. thx, Jason.