[PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Wu, Bryan]

Hi folks,

This patch adds kdebug.h header file to blackfin architecture.

Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@analog.com> 
---

 include/asm-blackfin/kdebug.h |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-blackfin/kdebug.h
===================================================================
--- /dev/null
+++ linux-2.6/include/asm-blackfin/kdebug.h
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+#include <asm-generic/kdebug.h>
_

Thanks,
-Bryan Wu

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Arnd Bergmann]

I can see nothing wrong with your patches, but you should make the
patch descriptions a little clearer:

On Monday 26 March 2007, Wu, Bryan wrote:
> Hi folks,

No need for this line, if it's there, Andrew just needs to remove
it from the changelog.

> This patch adds kdebug.h header file to blackfin architecture.

This line is completely redundant, as it states the same information
as the subject. You should give some background information here,
like:

kdebug.h is needed for kprobes.

For trivial patches where the subject already tells the whole story
(e.g. 'remove redundant declaration of foo'), just leave out the
description entirely except for the Signed-off-by.

	Arnd <><
you can even leave out the description

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Wu, Bryan]

On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 23:45 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I can see nothing wrong with your patches, but you should make the
> patch descriptions a little clearer:
> 

Thanks Arnd. I posted almost ten patches yesterday. Converting ten
patches to preformatted Emails is terrible manually, you know.

How does a kernel guru to do this, send out dozens of patch emails a
day? Is there any convenient tools to help this?

> On Monday 26 March 2007, Wu, Bryan wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> 
> No need for this line, if it's there, Andrew just needs to remove
> it from the changelog.
> 
> > This patch adds kdebug.h header file to blackfin architecture.
> 
> This line is completely redundant, as it states the same information
> as the subject. You should give some background information here,
> like:
> 
> kdebug.h is needed for kprobes.
> 
> For trivial patches where the subject already tells the whole story
> (e.g. 'remove redundant declaration of foo'), just leave out the
> description entirely except for the Signed-off-by.
> 
> 	Arnd <><
> you can even leave out the description

I really appreciate your warmly advice.

Best Regards,
Bryan

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Paul Mundt]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 11:40:37AM +0800, Wu, Bryan wrote:
> Thanks Arnd. I posted almost ten patches yesterday. Converting ten
> patches to preformatted Emails is terrible manually, you know.
> 
> How does a kernel guru to do this, send out dozens of patch emails a
> day? Is there any convenient tools to help this?
> 
Most people either have patch-bombing scripts or just use git to take
care of it. You should really consider the latter for getting updates
merged in the future, now that most of the initial troubles are resolved.

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Mike Frysinger]

On 3/26/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> You should really consider the latter for getting updates merged in the future

we're planning for this, but the short term it isnt doable for us

> now that most of the initial troubles are resolved.

i would say initial troubles are resolved once we're in Linus' tree :)
-mike

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Paul Mundt]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:34:25AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> >You should really consider the latter for getting updates merged in the 
> >future
> 
> we're planning for this, but the short term it isnt doable for us
> 
If you think mangling patches by hand is a more effective use of time, no
one is stopping you -- some people even prefer that. On the other hand, if
you're struggling with an effective methodology before things are merged,
what reason is there to suspect that things will get better afterwards?
Going by Bryan's post, it's clear that the current system isn't working
for you at least.

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Mike Frysinger]

On 3/27/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:34:25AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 3/26/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > >You should really consider the latter for getting updates merged in the
> > >future
> >
> > we're planning for this, but the short term it isnt doable for us
>
> If you think mangling patches by hand is a more effective use of time, no
> one is stopping you -- some people even prefer that. On the other hand, if
> you're struggling with an effective methodology before things are merged,
> what reason is there to suspect that things will get better afterwards?

we have a lot of infrastructure that the SCM is part of and at the
moment, git is not a supported SCM

i'm not saying the current system is easy, just that we cant integrate
git in the short term, so we'll continue spanking Bryan with the
overhead :/
-mike

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Randy Dunlap]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:17:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On 3/27/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:34:25AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On 3/26/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > >You should really consider the latter for getting updates merged in the
> > > >future
> > >
> > > we're planning for this, but the short term it isnt doable for us
> >
> > If you think mangling patches by hand is a more effective use of time, no
> > one is stopping you -- some people even prefer that. On the other hand, if
> > you're struggling with an effective methodology before things are merged,
> > what reason is there to suspect that things will get better afterwards?
> 
> we have a lot of infrastructure that the SCM is part of and at the
> moment, git is not a supported SCM
> 
> i'm not saying the current system is easy, just that we cant integrate
> git in the short term, so we'll continue spanking Bryan with the
> overhead :/

In that case, Bryan may like to know that git, mercurial (IIRC),
and quilt have patchbomb tools.  Also GregKH has one somewhere (he
can tell you where).  And Paul Jacksone has one at
  http://www.speakeasy.org/~pj99/sgi/sendpatchset


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Wu, Bryan]

On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 22:27 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:17:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
> > On 3/27/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:34:25AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On 3/26/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > > >You should really consider the latter for getting updates merged in the
> > > > >future
> > > >
> > > > we're planning for this, but the short term it isnt doable for us
> > >
> > > If you think mangling patches by hand is a more effective use of time, no
> > > one is stopping you -- some people even prefer that. On the other hand, if
> > > you're struggling with an effective methodology before things are merged,
> > > what reason is there to suspect that things will get better afterwards?
> > 
> > we have a lot of infrastructure that the SCM is part of and at the
> > moment, git is not a supported SCM
> > 
> > i'm not saying the current system is easy, just that we cant integrate
> > git in the short term, so we'll continue spanking Bryan with the
> > overhead :/
> 
> In that case, Bryan may like to know that git, mercurial (IIRC),
> and quilt have patchbomb tools.  Also GregKH has one somewhere (he
> can tell you where).  And Paul Jacksone has one at
>   http://www.speakeasy.org/~pj99/sgi/sendpatchset
> 

Thanks for this guide line information. I will dig into it.

But in my experience, it is difficult to find right patch email
receivers, even in the MAINTAINERS file. If there are 20 patch emails,
we should find 20 email receivers at least and manually add them to the
emails. This is terrible, right? Any idea?

Best Regards,
-Bryan

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:40:45PM +0800, Wu, Bryan wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this guide line information. I will dig into it.
> 
> But in my experience, it is difficult to find right patch email
> receivers, even in the MAINTAINERS file. If there are 20 patch emails,
> we should find 20 email receivers at least and manually add them to the
> emails. This is terrible, right? Any idea?
The Cc: foo <bar@com> contained in the descrition is used to keep this info
when you found it first time.
The patchbombing tools starts to support it.

	Sam

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Randy Dunlap]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:40:45 +0800 Wu, Bryan wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 22:27 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:17:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 
> > > On 3/27/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:34:25AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > On 3/26/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > > > >You should really consider the latter for getting updates merged in the
> > > > > >future
> > > > >
> > > > > we're planning for this, but the short term it isnt doable for us
> > > >
> > > > If you think mangling patches by hand is a more effective use of time, no
> > > > one is stopping you -- some people even prefer that. On the other hand, if
> > > > you're struggling with an effective methodology before things are merged,
> > > > what reason is there to suspect that things will get better afterwards?
> > > 
> > > we have a lot of infrastructure that the SCM is part of and at the
> > > moment, git is not a supported SCM
> > > 
> > > i'm not saying the current system is easy, just that we cant integrate
> > > git in the short term, so we'll continue spanking Bryan with the
> > > overhead :/
> > 
> > In that case, Bryan may like to know that git, mercurial (IIRC),
> > and quilt have patchbomb tools.  Also GregKH has one somewhere (he
> > can tell you where).  And Paul Jacksone has one at
> >   http://www.speakeasy.org/~pj99/sgi/sendpatchset
> > 
> 
> Thanks for this guide line information. I will dig into it.
> 
> But in my experience, it is difficult to find right patch email
> receivers, even in the MAINTAINERS file. If there are 20 patch emails,
> we should find 20 email receivers at least and manually add them to the
> emails. This is terrible, right? Any idea?

Yes, well, we all have the honor of going thru that.  There have
been a few suggestions, but I haven't seen any that were Real Good IMO.

You'll learn (quickly) where most patches go (i.e., subsystems and
their major maintainers/contributors).  Just put those people into
your email client address book and into the patch descriptions, like
Sam said, so that the patchbomb tools can help you out with them.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Wu, Bryan]

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 08:34 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:40:45 +0800 Wu, Bryan wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 22:27 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:17:06 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 3/27/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:34:25AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > On 3/26/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >You should really consider the latter for getting updates merged in the
> > > > > > >future
> > > > > >
> > > > > > we're planning for this, but the short term it isnt doable for us
> > > > >
> > > > > If you think mangling patches by hand is a more effective use of time, no
> > > > > one is stopping you -- some people even prefer that. On the other hand, if
> > > > > you're struggling with an effective methodology before things are merged,
> > > > > what reason is there to suspect that things will get better afterwards?
> > > > 
> > > > we have a lot of infrastructure that the SCM is part of and at the
> > > > moment, git is not a supported SCM
> > > > 
> > > > i'm not saying the current system is easy, just that we cant integrate
> > > > git in the short term, so we'll continue spanking Bryan with the
> > > > overhead :/
> > > 
> > > In that case, Bryan may like to know that git, mercurial (IIRC),
> > > and quilt have patchbomb tools.  Also GregKH has one somewhere (he
> > > can tell you where).  And Paul Jacksone has one at
> > >   http://www.speakeasy.org/~pj99/sgi/sendpatchset
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks for this guide line information. I will dig into it.
> > 
> > But in my experience, it is difficult to find right patch email
> > receivers, even in the MAINTAINERS file. If there are 20 patch emails,
> > we should find 20 email receivers at least and manually add them to the
> > emails. This is terrible, right? Any idea?
> 
> Yes, well, we all have the honor of going thru that.  There have
> been a few suggestions, but I haven't seen any that were Real Good IMO.
> 
> You'll learn (quickly) where most patches go (i.e., subsystems and
> their major maintainers/contributors).  Just put those people into
> your email client address book and into the patch descriptions, like
> Sam said, so that the patchbomb tools can help you out with them.
> 

Thanks a lot, I will try on my side. And one more question:

What is patchbomb tools, you mean git, quilt or other kernel patch
management tool? I am using quilt and try to use git to manage patches.
Is there a tool just named patchbomb?

Best Regards,
-Bryan

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Randy Dunlap]

>>>> In that case, Bryan may like to know that git, mercurial (IIRC),
>>>> and quilt have patchbomb tools.  Also GregKH has one somewhere (he
>>>> can tell you where).  And Paul Jacksone has one at
>>>>   http://www.speakeasy.org/~pj99/sgi/sendpatchset

> 
> Thanks a lot, I will try on my side. And one more question:
> 
> What is patchbomb tools, you mean git, quilt or other kernel patch
> management tool? I am using quilt and try to use git to manage patches.
> Is there a tool just named patchbomb?

No, just the scripts listed above, including quilt & git (except that I can't
find GregKH's script).

-- 
~Randy

PS:  I typo-ed Paul Jackson's name above.  :(

Re: [PATCH -mm] Blackfin arch: add kdebug header file

[Wu, Bryan]

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 01:17 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:34:25AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On 3/26/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > >You should really consider the latter for getting updates merged in the
> > > >future
> > >
> > > we're planning for this, but the short term it isnt doable for us
> >
> > If you think mangling patches by hand is a more effective use of time, no
> > one is stopping you -- some people even prefer that. On the other hand, if
> > you're struggling with an effective methodology before things are merged,
> > what reason is there to suspect that things will get better afterwards?
> 
> we have a lot of infrastructure that the SCM is part of and at the
> moment, git is not a supported SCM
> 

I hope git will one of it. You know, with git kernel development will be
much easier.

> i'm not saying the current system is easy, just that we cant integrate
> git in the short term, so we'll continue spanking Bryan with the
> overhead :/

Cool, That's my duty. 
-Bryan