Re: [PATCH] staging: axis-fifo: initialize timeouts in probe only

[Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 04:57:47PM -0700, Alison Schofield wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:31:21PM +0100, Fabio wrote:
> > On martedì 14 marzo 2023 21:43:40 CET Alison Schofield wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:07:10PM +0500, Khadija Kamran wrote:
> > > > Module parameter, read_timeout, can only be set at the loading time. As
> > > > it can only be modified once, initialize read_timeout once in the probe
> > > > function.
> > > > As a result, only use read_timeout as the last argument in
> > > > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() call.
> > > > 
> > > > Same goes for write_timeout.
> > > > 
> > > > Suggested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > Looks like this is [PATCH v5] and needs a changelog.
> > >
> > Alison,
> > 
> > In fact, this is only the second patch that addresses Greg's suggested 
> > refactoring. 
> > 
> > Khadija moved from v3 of "staging: axis-fifo: remove tabs to align arguments" 
> > to v4 of this completely independent patch. And then back to v1, because (at 
> > the time of v4) I pointed out to her that she had started working on a project 
> > that has a completely different purpose than the previous one.
> > 
> > The best course of action would have been to ask Greg to drop the previous 
> > patches and then reset the numbering of the new job to v1. Unfortunately I did 
> > not pay attention to how she then managed the numbering following my 
> > observation.
> > 
> > What would be the best course of action at this point?
> 
> My guess is that this patch gets ignored because it has a lower version
> number than a previous patch.
> 
> Take the feedback given here, and rev to
> [PATCH v5] staging: axis-fifo: initialize timeouts in probe only
> 
> Be sure the Changelog, below the --- explains the journey.
> 
> Changes in v5:
> 
> Changes in v4:
> 
> Changes in v3:
> 
> Changes in v2:
> 

Hey Alison!
Based on Nathan's feedback I am trying to recompile and send a patch
without any warnings.
As suggested by Fabio, I am running "make w=1 -jX" command to see if I
get any warnings. But it is taking a lot of time, is there any way of
speeding it up?
If this doesn't work then I have to follow the steps to reproduce in lkp
mail as you said before. 
After dealing with these warnings I will send a [PATCH v5], following
your instructions above.
Kindly, let me know if I am on the wrong track.
Thank you!

Regards,
Khadija

> 
> > 
> > Fabio
> > 
> >