Re: [PATCH 00/13] watchdog: factorize restart handler registration

[Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>]

On Nov. Tuesday 03 (45) 10:08 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 08:12 AM, Damien Riegel wrote:
> >Many drivers implements the exact same piece of code to register a
> >restart handler. It can be nice to factorize this in the watchdog core.
> >
> >The first patch adds an optional restart watchdog operation. If a driver
> >defines this operation, a restart handler is registered. By default, the
> >restart handler priority is set to 0, but a helper function
> >watchdog_set_restart_priority is provided to change it.
> >
> >The following patches bring this change to the current watchdog drivers
> >that use watchdog_core.
> >
> >This change has been compile-tested on da9063, imx2, lpc18xx, imgpdc.
> >It has been tested with (not mainlined yet) ts-4800's watchdog driver.
> >
> >Damien Riegel (13):
> >   watchdog: core: add restart handler support
> >   watchdog: bcm47xx_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: da9063_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: digicolor_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: imgpdc_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: imx2_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: lpc18xx_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: meson_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: moxart_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: mtk_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: qcom-wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: s3c2410_wdt: use core restart handler
> >   watchdog: sunxi_wdt: use core restart handler
> >
> 
> Damien,
> 
> "v2" in the subject line as well as a change log would have been appreciated.
> You are making it (hopefully not intentionally) difficult for maintainers
> to separate v1 from v2. You might want to keep in mind that maintainers are
> in general quite busy and might thus be a bit annoyed about such additional
> (and unnecessary) work.

Hi Guenter,

I assume the shot here. I suggested no subject prefix, since the first
patchset was RFC. Should we use "v2" even after an RFC? Or "v1" maybe?

Sorry about that,
-v