Re: [kbuild] [PATCH] iio: adc: fix platform_no_drv_owner.cocci warnings (fwd)
Hi Julia,
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:26:23AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
Is there any way that we can improve this process? At the moment, I just
take the message I get and forward it.
How about always send the patches to public LKML, with you in the CC list?
Thanks,
Fengguang
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:19:13 +
From: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
To: Julia Lawall julia.law...@lip6.fr
Cc: kbuild test robot fengguang...@intel.com,
Jacob Pan jacob.jun@linux.intel.com, kbu...@01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: fix platform_no_drv_owner.cocci warnings
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Julia Lawall wrote:
The owner field is no longer required. Please consider applying the
patch.
I don't know about Jonathan, but I can't take patches like this. They
need to be correctly formatted and sent as a proper patch:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, kbuild test robot wrote:
TO: Jacob Pan jacob.jun@linux.intel.com
CC: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
drivers/iio/adc/axp288_adc.c:246:3-8: No need to set .owner here. The
core will do it.
Incorrect $SUBJECT line for the subsystem.
Remove .owner field if calls are used which set it automatically
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/platform_no_drv_owner.cocci
CC: Jacob Pan jacob.jun@linux.intel.com
Adding a Cc: tag for yourself in a commit log is not good practice.
Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com
---
Please take the patch only if it's a positive warning. Thanks!
axp288_adc.c |1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/axp288_adc.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/axp288_adc.c
@@ -243,7 +243,6 @@ static struct platform_driver axp288_adc
.remove = axp288_adc_remove,
.driver = {
.name = axp288_adc,
- .owner = THIS_MODULE,
},
};
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
___
kbuild mailing list
kbuild@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
Re: [kbuild] [PATCH] iio: adc: fix platform_no_drv_owner.cocci warnings (fwd)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 08:23:36PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: Hi Julia, On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:26:23AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: Is there any way that we can improve this process? At the moment, I just take the message I get and forward it. I normally forward bug warnings if I read it before you. These patches are a pain for me to forward because the patch is an attachment and I have to edit them to change the signed off by and all. Also I feel like the simple_return.cocci are pretty high confidence so they could be sent automatically. Julia, what do you think? regards, dan carpenter ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
Re: [kbuild] [PATCH] iio: adc: fix platform_no_drv_owner.cocci warnings (fwd)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:45:39PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: But overall the problem is for the lower confidence ones how to get the patch to the developer in the form that they want. Is the idea that there are some lines that I should be removing (To, CC, and the file and line generated by Coccinelle)? Should I forward instead of replying? Fengguang and I use mutt. In mutt you can just edit the original message, change the from and to headers, chop out the meta comments about when the code was committed and resend. That's much more awkward for non mutt users though... regards, dan carpenter ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
Re: [kbuild] [PATCH] iio: adc: fix platform_no_drv_owner.cocci warnings (fwd)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:12:33PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 01:45:39PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: But overall the problem is for the lower confidence ones how to get the patch to the developer in the form that they want. Is the idea that there are some lines that I should be removing (To, CC, and the file and line generated by Coccinelle)? Should I forward instead of replying? Fengguang and I use mutt. In mutt you can just edit the original message, change the from and to headers, chop out the meta comments about when the code was committed and resend. That's much more awkward for non mutt users though... I don't think I would have any problem doing these things. I would just have to know to do them. My vision was that kbuild was automatic, I would check whether the proposed change was OK, and the developers would take it from there. If I should be producing a patch that they should apply directly than that's OK as well. The only question is who should the message be From (ie patch author)? Me? Fengguang? There isn't really a person associated with it. If you edit and forward out the email, the author should be you not me. I'm a robot, after all. ;) Thanks, Fengguang ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
Re: [kbuild] [PATCH] iio: adc: fix platform_no_drv_owner.cocci warnings (fwd)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 09:20:16PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: I'm a robot, after all. ;) Heh. One time I was credited to as: Reported-by: The Intel Backend And I had to tell them that I might be a backend, but I work for Oracle. regards, dan carpenter ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
Re: [kbuild] [PATCH] iio: adc: fix platform_no_drv_owner.cocci warnings (fwd)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 09:20:16PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: I'm a robot, after all. ;) Heh. One time I was credited to as: Reported-by: The Intel Backend And I had to tell them that I might be a backend, but I work for Oracle. That is amusing. :) Regards, Fengguang ___ kbuild mailing list kbuild@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild
