Re: [PATCH] drivers/hwmon: Use pr_fmt and pr_

Guenter Roeck
2010-10-20T14:47:21Z

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 03:34:38AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> * This isn't the kind of fixes we want to cherry-pick from. We're not
> fixing any bug here, are we? I certainly hope that a real bug fix
> wouldn't be hidden within a larger patch, but would have the separate
> patch it deserves. At which point we no longer care if the rest is
> one large patch or one patch per driver.
>
Actually, I do this kind of thing all the time when backporting.
It is easier to apply all patches applied to a driver than skipping
the cleanup patches, to avoid conflicts when cherry-picking functional
patches. The tendency for large cleanup patches affecting several drivers
and modules created trouble for me several times already.

> * I don't see us reverting that kind of patch either. If we don't like
> the changes for whatever reason, we don't take them in the first
> place. Once in, we're not going to change our minds.
>
> * 32 patches for a simple cleanup is actually a lot more work for me
> than a single large patch. It's cheaper for me to do minor
> adjustments to a large patch than to apply 32 patches individually.
>
Good point. I am using git all the time, so it isn't that much of a
problem for me. Our mailer problems (the tabs replacing stuff) are
much more annoying.

> * That being said, now that the hwmon subsystem maintainer is a shared
> duty between Guenter and myself, there's no single place where we can
> keep a patch touching many drivers and ensure it doesn't conflict
> with the changes in the other tree. But I would think this is
> something for Gunter and myself to sort out, not patch contributors.
>
> I currently have pending patches to the following hwmon drivers in my
> tree: adt7475, ams, asc7621, hdaps, it87, k8temp, lm75, lm85, lm90,
> pcf8591, s3c-hwmon, w83795. Two of these are affected by Joe's
> patch(es). Guenter, what about you?
>
coretemp, pkgtemp, via-cputemp, ltc4261 (new), lis3, hp_accel

Guenter