From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w2.samsung.com ([211.189.100.12]:35870 "EHLO usmailout2.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751453Ab3KQMD3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:03:29 -0500 Received: from uscpsbgm1.samsung.com (u114.gpu85.samsung.co.kr [203.254.195.114]) by mailout2.w2.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MWE00H62PHRLU40@mailout2.w2.samsung.com> for linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 07:03:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:03:21 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Dulshani Gunawardhana , Josh Triplett , Dan Carpenter , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Hans Verkuil Subject: Re: staging: media: Use dev_err() instead of pr_err() Message-id: <20131117100321.18ed7be8@samsung.com> In-reply-to: <20131115062939.GC28137@kroah.com> References: <20131114110814.6b13f62b@samsung.com> <20131115062939.GC28137@kroah.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Em Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:29:39 +0900 Greg Kroah-Hartman escreveu: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:08:14AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm not sure how this patch got applied upstream: > > > > commit b6ea5ef80aa7fd6f4b18ff2e4174930e8772e812 > > Author: Dulshani Gunawardhana > > Date: Sun Oct 20 22:58:28 2013 +0530 > > > > staging:media: Use dev_dbg() instead of pr_debug() > > > > Use dev_dbg() instead of pr_debug() in go7007-usb.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dulshani Gunawardhana > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > > But, from the custody chain, it seems it was not C/C to linux-media ML, > > doesn't have the driver maintainer's ack[1] and didn't went via my tree. > > It came in through my tree as part of the OPW intern application > process. Ah, OK. I don't mind if you apply those directly, but what makes me a little worried is that at least the final version of the patchset should be c/c to driver/subsystem maintainers for their review and for them to know that the patch will be merged via some other tree, as it might be causing conflicts with their trees. > And yes, sorry, it's broken, I have some follow-on patches to fix this, > but you are right, it should just be reverted for now, very sorry about > that. No problem. > Do you want to do that, or should I? I prefer if you could do it, as I'm still waiting the merge from my tree, and I don't want to cascade another pull request before the original pull requests get handled. In any case, they won't conflict with this, as I don't have any patch for this driver on my tree for 3.13. Thanks! Mauro