From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752871Ab3H0Dak (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:30:40 -0400 Received: from na3sys009aog124.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.151]:47235 "EHLO na3sys009aog124.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752359Ab3H0Daj (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:30:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:27:46 +0800 From: Jisheng Zhang To: Jason Cooper CC: "andrew@lunn.ch" , "gregory.clement@free-electrons.com" , "thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com" , "ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com" , "mturquette@linaro.org" , "sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com" , "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] arm: mvebu: fix resource leak Message-ID: <20130827112746.2e5abc73@xhacker> 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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear Jason, On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:22:37 -0700 Jason Cooper 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 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