From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jszhang@marvell.com (Jisheng Zhang)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:27:46 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v4 0/3] arm: mvebu: fix resource leak
In-Reply-To: <20130827032237.GA19598@titan.lakedaemon.net>
References: <1377517018-7716-1-git-send-email-jszhang@marvell.com>
 <20130826204523.GD24470@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <20130827110120.0a9fab2a@xhacker>
 <20130827032237.GA19598@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Message-ID: <20130827112746.2e5abc73@xhacker>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Dear Jason,

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:22:37 -0700
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> wrote:

> 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 <jason@lakedaemon.net> 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.
> 

Got it. Thanks very much for your excellent explanation.

Will do and send out patches latter.

Best Regards,
Jisheng