Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] staging: panel: Use defined value or checking module params state

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-11-28T20:34:13Z

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:57:06AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:24:17AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 01:58:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Mariusz Gorski wrote:
> > > > > > Avoid magic number and use a comparison with a defined value instead
> > > > > > that checks whether module param has been set by the user to some
> > > > > > value at loading time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Gorski <marius.gorski@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > v2: Don't introduce new macros for param value check
> > > > > >
> > > > > > drivers/staging/panel/panel.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ugh, I messed up here, and applied the first series, which was acked.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mariusz, can you resend the patches that I didn't apply, I can't seem to
> > > > > get the rest of these to work properly.
> > > >
> > > > Greg, if I get you here correctly, you've applied all 9 patches from v1
> > > > and none from v2, so what you need now is a v1->v2 patch, right?
> > >
> > > No, I think I applied the patches sent _before_ the 9 series, it was 4
> > > or 5 or so, you should have gotten an email about them. Pull my
> > > staging-testing branch and redo your remaining patches please.
> >
> > And the reason I got confused was because you didn't label your second
> > set of patches "v2", which it was, I saw two separate series, one with a
> > few patches, and then 2 sets of 9, the second set labeled "v2" so I
> > thought they were independant. Please think of the poor maintainer who
> > has to decipher things like this when you send them out...
>
> I'm confused right now. As you say, first I've sent a patchset of 4:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/11/963

Which I applied.

> Then, a couple of days later, I've sent the initial patchset of 9:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/18/922
>
> And a day I've sent a fixed version of the above patchset, labeled with v2:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/19/653

So I thought your series of 9 was separate from the series of 4, you can
see my confusion (remember, I receive on _average_ about 1000 emails a day).

> Isn't this the right way to do? I still don't get my mistake. Because
> what I was just about to do is to resend the v2 patchset, but now I'm
> not sure anymore if this is what I'm supposed to do.
>
> BTW: Out of these 3 patchsets, 1st and 3rd should be applied.

I tried to apply the 3rd, but it didn't apply due to patches I applied
in your first set of 4 patches.

Does that help?

greg k-h