Re: [PATCH 04/30] ARM: omap: add missing __devexit_p() annotations
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [111002 08:35]: On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 05:56:07PM +0200, Bjarne Steinsbo wrote: Arnd, Ref http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg57274.html Don't get me wrong. This is not about you stealing my patch, or anything like that. But look also at thread starting at http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg57667.html Also a patch that I have posted previously. Something is not right with the workflow when bugs are identified, patches are submitted, then ignored, only for someone else to fix the same bug. Enough said. That is where re-sending is important. Don't throw patches over the wall and then forget them - that's precisely how this happens. Bjarne, sorry for accidentally dropping patches, that's not intentional. Like Russell said, please follow through with your own patches and repost and complain until the patches do get merged. Consider who has the higher workload, and who ends up dealing with many many many emails, and realise that the options for those of us who receive patches are either to drop patches, or have an endlessly growing backlog of patches when things get busy. Unless we drop patches, things can get pretty rediculous - consider the effect of a backlog of one month worth of patches would cause... Tools like patchwork.kernel.org help a bit, and especially the email subject line containing magic the keyword fix might help avoiding the duplicate work. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 04/30] ARM: omap: add missing __devexit_p() annotations
* Bjarne Steinsbo bstein...@gmail.com [111002 08:22]:
Arnd,
Ref http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg57274.html
Don't get me wrong. This is not about you stealing my patch, or
anything like that. But look also at thread starting at
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg57667.html Also a patch
that I have posted previously. Something is not right with the
workflow when bugs are identified, patches are submitted, then
ignored, only for someone else to fix the same bug. Enough said.
Arnd, I suggest using Bjarne's earlier patch here:
Acked-by: Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Drivers that refer to a __devexit function in an operations
structure need to annotate that pointer with __devexit_p so
replace it with a NULL pointer when the section gets discarded.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c | 2 +-
arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
index 34c01a7..67bc6ce 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
@@ -1002,7 +1002,7 @@ static int __devexit omap_sr_remove(struct
platform_device *pdev)
}
static struct platform_driver smartreflex_driver = {
- .remove = omap_sr_remove,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(omap_sr_remove),
.driver = {
.name = smartreflex,
},
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
index c22217c..f7150ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
@@ -2105,7 +2105,7 @@ static int __devexit omap_system_dma_remove(struct
platform_device *pdev)
static struct platform_driver omap_system_dma_driver = {
.probe = omap_system_dma_probe,
- .remove = omap_system_dma_remove,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(omap_system_dma_remove),
.driver = {
.name = omap_dma_system
},
--
1.7.5.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH 04/30] ARM: omap: add missing __devexit_p() annotations
Drivers that refer to a __devexit function in an operations
structure need to annotate that pointer with __devexit_p so
replace it with a NULL pointer when the section gets discarded.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c |2 +-
arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c |2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
index 34c01a7..67bc6ce 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
@@ -1002,7 +1002,7 @@ static int __devexit omap_sr_remove(struct
platform_device *pdev)
}
static struct platform_driver smartreflex_driver = {
- .remove = omap_sr_remove,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(omap_sr_remove),
.driver = {
.name = smartreflex,
},
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
index c22217c..f7150ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
@@ -2105,7 +2105,7 @@ static int __devexit omap_system_dma_remove(struct
platform_device *pdev)
static struct platform_driver omap_system_dma_driver = {
.probe = omap_system_dma_probe,
- .remove = omap_system_dma_remove,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(omap_system_dma_remove),
.driver = {
.name = omap_dma_system
},
--
1.7.5.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 04/30] ARM: omap: add missing __devexit_p() annotations
Arnd,
Ref http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg57274.html
Don't get me wrong. This is not about you stealing my patch, or
anything like that. But look also at thread starting at
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg57667.html Also a patch
that I have posted previously. Something is not right with the
workflow when bugs are identified, patches are submitted, then
ignored, only for someone else to fix the same bug. Enough said.
Best regards,
Bjarne Steinsbo
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Drivers that refer to a __devexit function in an operations
structure need to annotate that pointer with __devexit_p so
replace it with a NULL pointer when the section gets discarded.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c | 2 +-
arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
index 34c01a7..67bc6ce 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
@@ -1002,7 +1002,7 @@ static int __devexit omap_sr_remove(struct
platform_device *pdev)
}
static struct platform_driver smartreflex_driver = {
- .remove = omap_sr_remove,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(omap_sr_remove),
.driver = {
.name = smartreflex,
},
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
index c22217c..f7150ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c
@@ -2105,7 +2105,7 @@ static int __devexit omap_system_dma_remove(struct
platform_device *pdev)
static struct platform_driver omap_system_dma_driver = {
.probe = omap_system_dma_probe,
- .remove = omap_system_dma_remove,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(omap_system_dma_remove),
.driver = {
.name = omap_dma_system
},
--
1.7.5.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 04/30] ARM: omap: add missing __devexit_p() annotations
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 05:56:07PM +0200, Bjarne Steinsbo wrote: Arnd, Ref http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg57274.html Don't get me wrong. This is not about you stealing my patch, or anything like that. But look also at thread starting at http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg57667.html Also a patch that I have posted previously. Something is not right with the workflow when bugs are identified, patches are submitted, then ignored, only for someone else to fix the same bug. Enough said. That is where re-sending is important. Don't throw patches over the wall and then forget them - that's precisely how this happens. Consider who has the higher workload, and who ends up dealing with many many many emails, and realise that the options for those of us who receive patches are either to drop patches, or have an endlessly growing backlog of patches when things get busy. Unless we drop patches, things can get pretty rediculous - consider the effect of a backlog of one month worth of patches would cause... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 04/30] ARM: omap: add missing __devexit_p() annotations
On Sunday 02 October 2011 08:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: Drivers that refer to a __devexit function in an operations structure need to annotate that pointer with __devexit_p so replace it with a NULL pointer when the section gets discarded. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de --- Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
