| Message ID | 20240326-module-owner-amba-v1-0-4517b091385b@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register() | expand |
Hi Krzysztof On 26/03/2024 20:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Merging > ======= > All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack > and this should go via one tree. Are you able to provide a stable branch with these patches once you pull them in to "one tree" here ? We have changes coming up in the coresight tree, which would conflict with the changes here (horribly). FWIW, For patches 1 to 13 : Acked-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Suzuki
On 27/03/2024 00:24, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > Hi Krzysztof > > On 26/03/2024 20:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Merging >> ======= >> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >> and this should go via one tree. > > Are you able to provide a stable branch with these patches once you pull I doubt I will be merging this. I think amba code goes through Russell. > them in to "one tree" here ? We have changes coming up in the coresight > tree, which would conflict with the changes here (horribly). > You mean conflict with coresight conversion to platform driver? Worst case it is solveable: just drop .owner. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 27/03/2024 05:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/03/2024 00:24, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof >> >> On 26/03/2024 20:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Merging >>> ======= >>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >>> and this should go via one tree. >> >> Are you able to provide a stable branch with these patches once you pull > > I doubt I will be merging this. I think amba code goes through Russell. > >> them in to "one tree" here ? We have changes coming up in the coresight >> tree, which would conflict with the changes here (horribly). >> > > You mean conflict with coresight conversion to platform driver? Worst Yes. > case it is solveable: just drop .owner. Or, we could merge the CoreSight changes (as they are really not affected by the problem this series is trying to address) after the base changes land in AMBA, via the CoreSight tree. Suzuki > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Merging > ======= > All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack > and this should go via one tree. > > Description > =========== > Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to > set .owner field. > > Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core > amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit > 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of > platform_driver_register"). > > Best regards, I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting standard patches. First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's. Second it submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web (!!!) interface. I did it, clicked 19 times and system was happy... but then on email said the patches were rejected. Couldn't tell it after submitting first patch via the web? That's the response: ------------- Your patch has not been logged because: Error: Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing your patch. Error: Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or "---". Error: the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect Signed-off-by lines: - author signoff <krzkreg@gmail.com> is missing. Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11 for details on signing off patches. Please see https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/info.shtml for more information. ------------- This is unbelievable waste of time. I am not going to use this tracker. It's huge obstacle and huge waste of submitters time. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 27/03/2024 10:22, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > On 27/03/2024 05:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 27/03/2024 00:24, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>> Hi Krzysztof >>> >>> On 26/03/2024 20:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> Merging >>>> ======= >>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >>>> and this should go via one tree. >>> >>> Are you able to provide a stable branch with these patches once you pull >> >> I doubt I will be merging this. I think amba code goes through Russell. >> >>> them in to "one tree" here ? We have changes coming up in the coresight >>> tree, which would conflict with the changes here (horribly). >>> >> >> You mean conflict with coresight conversion to platform driver? Worst > > Yes. > >> case it is solveable: just drop .owner. > > Or, we could merge the CoreSight changes (as they are really not > affected by the problem this series is trying to address) after the > base changes land in AMBA, via the CoreSight tree. I'll provide you a stable branch to fetch. I was defeated by Russell's patch tracking system. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Merging > ======= > All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack > and this should go via one tree. > > Description > =========== > Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to > set .owner field. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register() (no commit info) [02/19] coresight: cti: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [03/19] coresight: catu: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [04/19] coresight: etm3x: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [05/19] coresight: etm4x: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [06/19] coresight: funnel: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [07/19] coresight: replicator: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [08/19] coresight: etb10: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [09/19] coresight: stm: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [10/19] coresight: tmc: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [11/19] coresight: tpda: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [12/19] coresight: tpdm: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [13/19] coresight: tpiu: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [14/19] i2c: nomadik: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [15/19] hwrng: nomadik: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [16/19] dmaengine: pl330: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [17/19] Input: ambakmi - drop owner assignment (no commit info) [18/19] memory: pl353-smc: drop owner assignment (no commit info) [19/19] vfio: amba: drop owner assignment (no commit info) Best regards,
On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Merging >> ======= >> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >> and this should go via one tree. >> >> Description >> =========== >> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to >> set .owner field. >> >> [...] > > Applied, thanks! > > [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register() > (no commit info) Patchset applied here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba Best regards, Krzysztof
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Merging > > ======= > > All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack > > and this should go via one tree. > > > > Description > > =========== > > Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to > > set .owner field. > > > > Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core > > amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit > > 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of > > platform_driver_register"). > > > > Best regards, > > I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This > is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other > maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting > standard patches. Sorry but no. Stop being offensive. > First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's. Eh? There is no such logic in there. > Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web > (!!!) interface. Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*. The fact is, the web interface is merely a front end interface that generates an email and submits it in the usual way by email - an email that you can perfectly well generate that is *very* close to the standard email that git format-patch generates. The *only* difference is that the patch system wants a KernelVersion: tag in the email _somewhere_ and it doesn't matter where it appears. Git even has support to do this. git format-patch --add-header="KernelVersion: $foo" Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4 and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required because it means when there's problems applying a patch, it gives me the additional information about the base used for the patch (and it keeps on being useful to have.) > That's the response: > ------------- > Your patch has not been logged because: > > Error: Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing > your patch. > > > Error: Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or > "---". > > Error: the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect > Signed-off-by lines: > > - author signoff <krzkreg@gmail.com> is missing. > > Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11 > for details on signing off patches. Lots of people use it without a problem. I've just run the parser through its offline tests, and it parses email content correctly. I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but it looks like something pretty serious if it didn't parse the subject line. Rather than getting stressed about it, why don't you send me an email the first time something goes wrong so I can investigate, turn on debugging to capture the problem email?
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 09:56:17AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > Merging > > > ======= > > > All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack > > > and this should go via one tree. > > > > > > Description > > > =========== > > > Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to > > > set .owner field. > > > > > > Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core > > > amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit > > > 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of > > > platform_driver_register"). > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This > > is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other > > maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting > > standard patches. > > Sorry but no. Stop being offensive. > > > First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's. > > Eh? There is no such logic in there. > > > Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web > > (!!!) interface. > > Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you > failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows > you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where > the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the > web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*. > > The fact is, the web interface is merely a front end interface that > generates an email and submits it in the usual way by email - an > email that you can perfectly well generate that is *very* close to > the standard email that git format-patch generates. > > The *only* difference is that the patch system wants a KernelVersion: > tag in the email _somewhere_ and it doesn't matter where it appears. > Git even has support to do this. > > git format-patch --add-header="KernelVersion: $foo" > > Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4 > and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which > tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required > because it means when there's problems applying a patch, it gives me > the additional information about the base used for the patch (and it > keeps on being useful to have.) > > > That's the response: > > ------------- > > Your patch has not been logged because: > > > > Error: Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing > > your patch. > > > > > > Error: Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or > > "---". > > > > Error: the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect > > Signed-off-by lines: > > > > - author signoff <krzkreg@gmail.com> is missing. > > > > Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11 > > for details on signing off patches. > > Lots of people use it without a problem. I've just run the parser > through its offline tests, and it parses email content correctly. > I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but it looks like something > pretty serious if it didn't parse the subject line. > > Rather than getting stressed about it, why don't you send me an email > the first time something goes wrong so I can investigate, turn on > debugging to capture the problem email? ... and I'll also point out one of the biggest problems is people. People who think it's more complex than it is, or who can't read instructions. For example, trying to tell people to use the standard format subject line: [PATCH ...] blah has proven to be hopeless - unless one states to them the exact sequence of keys on their keyboard to press - yes, it *really* takes that patronising level to get everyone to understand. If one tries to do it any other way, then you get stuff like: "[PATCH ...] ..." with the quotes. Or some other stupid variation. The patch system is as forgiving as possible. It takes standard git formatted patches (with the exception of wanting an additional tag). It is possible that bugs creep in - particularly when Debian updates get applied and change the way Perl works, but I don't think that's what has happened with your situation. I _guess_ you're putting the entire email-like output from git format-patch as the patch file. That won't work - that isn't a "patch file", that is an email/email template, and the patch system will attempt to parse that as the patch itself. I suppose you term "patch" to be the email as well, rather than what I interpret it to be, which is only the output of "diff" - call me old fashioned but that's what a patch file used to be before the waters got muddied by git "patch files".
On 02/04/2024 10:56, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Merging >>> ======= >>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >>> and this should go via one tree. >>> >>> Description >>> =========== >>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to >>> set .owner field. >>> >>> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core >>> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit >>> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of >>> platform_driver_register"). >>> >>> Best regards, >> >> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This >> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other >> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting >> standard patches. > > Sorry but no. Stop being offensive. > >> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's. > > Eh? There is no such logic in there. In the web system there is - read the error message I pasted. It wants another SoB from the unrelated email account, the one used purely for registering in some web system, not the one used for code handling. > >> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web >> (!!!) interface. > > Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you > failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows > you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where The email one requires additional steps, so this is unnecessary work confusing submitters. I submit dozens or hundreds of patches every release cycle. That's the only subsystem which is odd to use. > the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the > web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*. No, they are not. None of my emails are screwed by my company system. > > The fact is, the web interface is merely a front end interface that > generates an email and submits it in the usual way by email - an > email that you can perfectly well generate that is *very* close to > the standard email that git format-patch generates. > > The *only* difference is that the patch system wants a KernelVersion: > tag in the email _somewhere_ and it doesn't matter where it appears. > Git even has support to do this. > > git format-patch --add-header="KernelVersion: $foo" > > Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4 > and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which > tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required Which is absolutely ridiculous now. Expecting submitters to adhere to some rule for 20 year old kernel is not reasonable. > because it means when there's problems applying a patch, it gives me > the additional information about the base used for the patch (and it > keeps on being useful to have.) > >> That's the response: >> ------------- >> Your patch has not been logged because: >> >> Error: Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing >> your patch. >> >> >> Error: Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or >> "---". >> >> Error: the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect >> Signed-off-by lines: >> >> - author signoff <krzkreg@gmail.com> is missing. ^^^ here you have additional SoB expectation. >> >> Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11 >> for details on signing off patches. > > Lots of people use it without a problem. I've just run the parser > through its offline tests, and it parses email content correctly. > I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but it looks like something > pretty serious if it didn't parse the subject line. > > Rather than getting stressed about it, why don't you send me an email > the first time something goes wrong so I can investigate, turn on > debugging to capture the problem email? I don't know any person who enjoyed working with your patch workflow. From few people I talked, it was always "now I have to learn this weird system" or "I need to get through this process which is different than everything in the kernel". Plus you entirely ignored poor usability of this system which: 1. Allows submitting patches only 1-by-1, so 19 useless steps in my case. 2. Accepts the first/second/all patches without problem encouraging me to submit the rest... and then tells me via email they were wrong and could not be accepted. This is the poorest user-experience one can imagine. If you put effort into some web form, make it at least helpful so reject the patch if it does not match your expectations. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 02/04/2024 11:06, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 09:56:17AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> Merging >>>> ======= >>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >>>> and this should go via one tree. >>>> >>>> Description >>>> =========== >>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to >>>> set .owner field. >>>> >>>> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core >>>> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit >>>> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of >>>> platform_driver_register"). >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>> >>> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This >>> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other >>> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting >>> standard patches. >> >> Sorry but no. Stop being offensive. >> >>> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's. >> >> Eh? There is no such logic in there. >> >>> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web >>> (!!!) interface. >> >> Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you >> failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows >> you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where >> the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the >> web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*. >> >> The fact is, the web interface is merely a front end interface that >> generates an email and submits it in the usual way by email - an >> email that you can perfectly well generate that is *very* close to >> the standard email that git format-patch generates. >> >> The *only* difference is that the patch system wants a KernelVersion: >> tag in the email _somewhere_ and it doesn't matter where it appears. >> Git even has support to do this. >> >> git format-patch --add-header="KernelVersion: $foo" >> >> Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4 >> and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which >> tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required >> because it means when there's problems applying a patch, it gives me >> the additional information about the base used for the patch (and it >> keeps on being useful to have.) >> >>> That's the response: >>> ------------- >>> Your patch has not been logged because: >>> >>> Error: Please supply a summary subject line briefly describing >>> your patch. >>> >>> >>> Error: Please supply a "KernelVersion: " tag after "PATCH FOLLOWS" or >>> "---". >>> >>> Error: the patch you are submitting has one or more missing or incorrect >>> Signed-off-by lines: >>> >>> - author signoff <krzkreg@gmail.com> is missing. >>> >>> Please see the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches, section 11 >>> for details on signing off patches. >> >> Lots of people use it without a problem. I've just run the parser >> through its offline tests, and it parses email content correctly. >> I've no idea what you're doing wrong, but it looks like something >> pretty serious if it didn't parse the subject line. >> >> Rather than getting stressed about it, why don't you send me an email >> the first time something goes wrong so I can investigate, turn on >> debugging to capture the problem email? > > ... and I'll also point out one of the biggest problems is people. > People who think it's more complex than it is, or who can't read > instructions. We all read submitting-patches instructions (and many more). A need to learn one more set of instructions for one more process leads to people needing to learn 100 different processes for 100 different subsystems. That's not the way how people should be contributing to Linux kernel. > > For example, trying to tell people to use the standard format subject > line: > > [PATCH ...] blah > > has proven to be hopeless - unless one states to them the exact > sequence of keys on their keyboard to press - yes, it *really* takes > that patronising level to get everyone to understand. If one tries to > do it any other way, then you get stuff like: > > "[PATCH ...] ..." > > with the quotes. Or some other stupid variation. > > The patch system is as forgiving as possible. It takes standard git > formatted patches (with the exception of wanting an additional tag). The additional tag about kernel version is redundant and not helping anyone. I doubt you apply patches on top of linux-next or top of previous release (e.g. v6.8-rc1). Almost every maintainer applies on top of current RC, so v6.9-rc1 currently, thus version is just unnecessary obstacle. > > It is possible that bugs creep in - particularly when Debian updates > get applied and change the way Perl works, but I don't think that's > what has happened with your situation. > > I _guess_ you're putting the entire email-like output from git > format-patch as the patch file. That won't work - that isn't a "patch > file", that is an email/email template, and the patch system will > attempt to parse that as the patch itself. Yes, that's what every sane person's workflow is. git format-patch -19 (cover letter goes from branch description). > > I suppose you term "patch" to be the email as well, rather than what > I interpret it to be, which is only the output of "diff" - call me > old fashioned but that's what a patch file used to be before the > waters got muddied by git "patch files". Well, world is now using git as a standard. It's true there is quilt out there, but even Andrew I think is going slowly towards git in some parts of his workflow. But then even Andrew accepted standard patch from the mailing lists. No need for any other step, no need for any double submission (one public, second to patches@armlinux or webform) with any other requirement. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:48:08AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 02/04/2024 10:56, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> Merging > >>> ======= > >>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack > >>> and this should go via one tree. > >>> > >>> Description > >>> =========== > >>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to > >>> set .owner field. > >>> > >>> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core > >>> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit > >>> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of > >>> platform_driver_register"). > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >> > >> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This > >> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other > >> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting > >> standard patches. > > > > Sorry but no. Stop being offensive. > > > >> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's. > > > > Eh? There is no such logic in there. > > In the web system there is - read the error message I pasted. It wants > another SoB from the unrelated email account, the one used purely for > registering in some web system, not the one used for code handling. So you're disagreeing with the author of this system. Of course you know best, you know the code behind it. I have only one word for that kind of attitude: idiotic. > >> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web > >> (!!!) interface. > > > > Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you > > failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows > > you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where > > The email one requires additional steps, so this is unnecessary work > confusing submitters. I submit dozens or hundreds of patches every > release cycle. That's the only subsystem which is odd to use. Lots of people use it without issue. People even send patches to the mailing list copied to the patch system. > > the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the > > web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*. > > No, they are not. None of my emails are screwed by my company system. So why are you using the web interface? > > Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4 > > and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which > > tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required > > Which is absolutely ridiculous now. Expecting submitters to adhere to > some rule for 20 year old kernel is not reasonable. You aren't listening to me, so it's pointless discussing this further. You have a bee in your bonet and you want to make it a huge issue rather than work constructively. Sorry but no, I'm not going to continue this confrontational exchange. You clearly don't want to understand anything.
On 02/04/2024 11:57, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:48:08AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 02/04/2024 10:56, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:18:30PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 26/03/2024 21:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> Merging >>>>> ======= >>>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >>>>> and this should go via one tree. >>>>> >>>>> Description >>>>> =========== >>>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to >>>>> set .owner field. >>>>> >>>>> Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core >>>>> amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit >>>>> 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of >>>>> platform_driver_register"). >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> I tried to submit this series to Russell patch tracker and failed. This >>>> is ridiculous. It's 2024 and instead of normal process, like every other >>>> maintainer, so b4 or Patchwork, we have some unusable system rejecting >>>> standard patches. >>> >>> Sorry but no. Stop being offensive. >>> >>>> First, it depends some weird, duplicated signed-off-by's. >>> >>> Eh? There is no such logic in there. >> >> In the web system there is - read the error message I pasted. It wants >> another SoB from the unrelated email account, the one used purely for >> registering in some web system, not the one used for code handling. > > So you're disagreeing with the author of this system. Of course you > know best, you know the code behind it. I have only one word for > that kind of attitude: idiotic. I pasted you the error which the system reported to me. > >>>> Second it > submitting patch-by-patch, all with clicking on some web >>>> (!!!) interface. >>> >>> Again, no it doesn't, and you're just throwing crap out because you >>> failed. Unlike most of the "normal" processes, the patch system allows >>> you to submit both by *email* and also by *web* for those cases where >> >> The email one requires additional steps, so this is unnecessary work >> confusing submitters. I submit dozens or hundreds of patches every >> release cycle. That's the only subsystem which is odd to use. > > Lots of people use it without issue. People even send patches to the > mailing list copied to the patch system. > I will try that. >>> the emails get screwed up by ones company mail server. That's why the >>> web interface exists - to give people *flexibility*. >> >> No, they are not. None of my emails are screwed by my company system. > > So why are you using the web interface? > >>> Why does it want the kernel version? Because when we were running 2.4 >>> and 2.5 kernel versions in parallel, it was important to know which >>> tree the patch was being submitted for. It has continued to be required >> >> Which is absolutely ridiculous now. Expecting submitters to adhere to >> some rule for 20 year old kernel is not reasonable. > > You aren't listening to me, so it's pointless discussing this further. > You have a bee in your bonet and you want to make it a huge issue Well, all my comments were about the actual topic - patch submission process made for ARM subsystem by you. Your replies include comments about me and what do I have in my bonet. You brought no argument for keeping the kernel-version-header requirement nowadays, yet you call me of not working constructively. I brought that argument - it is redundant and it is an obstacle for the contributor. > rather than work constructively. Sorry but no, I'm not going to continue > this confrontational exchange. > > You clearly don't want to understand anything. I understood a lot, although I did not answer under every point "I understand this part, I disagree here". Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:04:07PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > You brought no argument for keeping the kernel-version-header > requirement nowadays, yet you call me of not working constructively. I So add inability to read to your failings, because I _did_ state that _I_ still _use_ it. End of discussion, I'm not engaging with you in your current confrontational mood where you clearly don't want to understand anything (or intentionally misinterpreting) I'm writing - making it pointless to continue. I even think you're intentionally misinterpreting the responses from the patch system. Overall, I can only draw the conclusion that you are playing politics and want the patch system gone, and you want me to use "standard" tooling that will _increase_ the amount of effort I need to put in. No, that's not going to happen.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 11:12:36AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:04:07PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > You brought no argument for keeping the kernel-version-header > > requirement nowadays, yet you call me of not working constructively. I > > So add inability to read to your failings, because I _did_ state that > _I_ still _use_ it. > > End of discussion, I'm not engaging with you in your current > confrontational mood where you clearly don't want to understand > anything (or intentionally misinterpreting) I'm writing - making it > pointless to continue. > > I even think you're intentionally misinterpreting the responses > from the patch system. > > Overall, I can only draw the conclusion that you are playing politics > and want the patch system gone, and you want me to use "standard" > tooling that will _increase_ the amount of effort I need to put in. > No, that's not going to happen. ... and this is your final chance to change to a constructive discourse, if not, you are going to end up in my kill file. Whether you do is entirely up to the tone of your reply to this email. I am always more than willing to work with a submitter to diagnose what the problem is, but the tone of your emails make me want to ignore you.
+ Greg Hi Krzysztof, On 30/03/2024 18:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Merging >>> ======= >>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >>> and this should go via one tree. >>> >>> Description >>> =========== >>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to >>> set .owner field. >>> >>> [...] >> >> Applied, thanks! >> >> [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register() >> (no commit info) > > Patchset applied here: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba How do you plan to push this ? Given this affects most of the drivers/, do you plan to send this to Greg ? We have changes in the coresight tree that would conflict with this "tag" ( I haven't merged them yet, but is in my local queue). I want to make sure we can avoid the conflicts. I am happy to merge this to my local tree and base the changes on this, if this is going in for v6.10 and all are in agreement. Kind regards Suzuki > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On 16/04/2024 12:41, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > + Greg > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 30/03/2024 18:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> Merging >>>> ======= >>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >>>> and this should go via one tree. >>>> >>>> Description >>>> =========== >>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to >>>> set .owner field. >>>> >>>> [...] >>> >>> Applied, thanks! >>> >>> [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register() >>> (no commit info) >> >> Patchset applied here: >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba > > How do you plan to push this ? Given this affects most of the drivers/, > do you plan to send this to Greg ? We have changes in the coresight > tree that would conflict with this "tag" ( I haven't merged them yet, > but is in my local queue). I want to make sure we can avoid the > conflicts. I am happy to merge this to my local tree and base the > changes on this, if this is going in for v6.10 and all are in agreement. I pushed it to arm-linux patches but it hasn't been picked up. I propose you take entire set then. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:29:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 16/04/2024 12:41, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > > + Greg > > > > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > On 30/03/2024 18:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> Merging > >>>> ======= > >>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack > >>>> and this should go via one tree. > >>>> > >>>> Description > >>>> =========== > >>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to > >>>> set .owner field. > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>> > >>> Applied, thanks! > >>> > >>> [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register() > >>> (no commit info) > >> > >> Patchset applied here: > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba > > > > How do you plan to push this ? Given this affects most of the drivers/, > > do you plan to send this to Greg ? We have changes in the coresight > > tree that would conflict with this "tag" ( I haven't merged them yet, > > but is in my local queue). I want to make sure we can avoid the > > conflicts. I am happy to merge this to my local tree and base the > > changes on this, if this is going in for v6.10 and all are in agreement. > > I pushed it to arm-linux patches but it hasn't been picked up. > > I propose you take entire set then. You are again being, IMHO, abrasive with your attitude. So far, every interaction with you has been abrasive and bordering on abusive. You haven't asked me whether I will take them. I will - just not at the moment because I HAVE MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS LAST WEEK AND THIS WEEK WHICH MEAN I AM NOT SPENDING ALL MY TIME ON THE KERNEL. Have some bloody patience rather than behaving in your standard objectionable manner.
On 17/04/2024 15:50, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:29:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 16/04/2024 12:41, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>> + Greg >>> >>> >>> Hi Krzysztof, >>> >>> On 30/03/2024 18:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 30/03/2024 18:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:23:30 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> Merging >>>>>> ======= >>>>>> All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack >>>>>> and this should go via one tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Description >>>>>> =========== >>>>>> Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to >>>>>> set .owner field. >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Applied, thanks! >>>>> >>>>> [01/19] amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register() >>>>> (no commit info) >>>> >>>> Patchset applied here: >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux-dt.git/log/?h=for-v6.10/module-owner-amba >>> >>> How do you plan to push this ? Given this affects most of the drivers/, >>> do you plan to send this to Greg ? We have changes in the coresight >>> tree that would conflict with this "tag" ( I haven't merged them yet, >>> but is in my local queue). I want to make sure we can avoid the >>> conflicts. I am happy to merge this to my local tree and base the >>> changes on this, if this is going in for v6.10 and all are in agreement. >> >> I pushed it to arm-linux patches but it hasn't been picked up. >> >> I propose you take entire set then. > > You are again being, IMHO, abrasive with your attitude. So far, every > interaction with you has been abrasive and bordering on abusive. > > You haven't asked me whether I will take them. I will - just not at the > moment because Thanks for confirming, I wanted to ping you because there was no feedback. Can you provide stable tag for coresight tree? Best regards, Krzysztof
Merging ======= All further patches depend on the first amba patch, therefore please ack and this should go via one tree. Description =========== Modules registering driver with amba_driver_register() often forget to set .owner field. Solve the problem by moving this task away from the drivers to the core amba bus code, just like we did for platform_driver in commit 9447057eaff8 ("platform_device: use a macro instead of platform_driver_register"). Best regards, Krzysztof --- Krzysztof Kozlowski (19): amba: store owner from modules with amba_driver_register() coresight: cti: drop owner assignment coresight: catu: drop owner assignment coresight: etm3x: drop owner assignment coresight: etm4x: drop owner assignment coresight: funnel: drop owner assignment coresight: replicator: drop owner assignment coresight: etb10: drop owner assignment coresight: stm: drop owner assignment coresight: tmc: drop owner assignment coresight: tpda: drop owner assignment coresight: tpdm: drop owner assignment coresight: tpiu: drop owner assignment i2c: nomadik: drop owner assignment hwrng: nomadik: drop owner assignment dmaengine: pl330: drop owner assignment Input: ambakmi - drop owner assignment memory: pl353-smc: drop owner assignment vfio: amba: drop owner assignment drivers/amba/bus.c | 11 +++++++---- drivers/char/hw_random/nomadik-rng.c | 1 - drivers/dma/pl330.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-catu.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cti-core.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm3x-core.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-funnel.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-stm.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-core.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpda.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c | 1 - drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpiu.c | 1 - drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c | 1 - drivers/input/serio/ambakmi.c | 1 - drivers/memory/pl353-smc.c | 1 - drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_amba.c | 1 - include/linux/amba/bus.h | 11 +++++++++-- 20 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) --- base-commit: 1fdad13606e104ff103ca19d2d660830cb36d43e change-id: 20240326-module-owner-amba-3ebb65256be7 Best regards,