| Message ID | 1405683053-14104-1-git-send-email-LW@KARO-electronics.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | af9e53fef7015e1e4fe3f32b35e839df392bf4d6 |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 01:30:53PM +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > Aua. This really hurts. I wonder how this could ever be admitted to > the Linux kernel... > Further comments suppressed because the would most likely violate the > CDA. > > If someone should not grasp what this patch does, they should consider > what happens upon unloading/reloading the kernel module. > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> I'm not going to apply this with a commit message such as the above. Quite aside from the tone the fact that it doesn't describe the issue is not helpful for review, one of the things done in review is to try to check that the change has the intended effect.
Hi, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 01:30:53PM +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > > Aua. This really hurts. I wonder how this could ever be admitted to > > the Linux kernel... > > Further comments suppressed because the would most likely violate the > > CDA. > > > > If someone should not grasp what this patch does, they should consider > > what happens upon unloading/reloading the kernel module. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> > > I'm not going to apply this with a commit message such as the above. > Quite aside from the tone the fact that it doesn't describe the issue > is not helpful for review, one of the things done in review is to try to > check that the change has the intended effect. > Maybe the original author or the maintainer who accepted this can come up with a decent fix for this. Lothar Waßmann
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 07:51:44AM +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > I'm not going to apply this with a commit message such as the above. > > Quite aside from the tone the fact that it doesn't describe the issue > > is not helpful for review, one of the things done in review is to try to > > check that the change has the intended effect. > Maybe the original author or the maintainer who accepted this can come > up with a decent fix for this. Just to be clear the issue is with the presentation of your change, it is not appropriate to provide a changelog which consists mainly of widely directed personal insults especially given that it omits basic technical content.
Hi, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 07:51:44AM +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > > Mark Brown wrote: > > > > I'm not going to apply this with a commit message such as the above. > > > Quite aside from the tone the fact that it doesn't describe the issue > > > is not helpful for review, one of the things done in review is to try to > > > check that the change has the intended effect. > > > Maybe the original author or the maintainer who accepted this can come > > up with a decent fix for this. > > Just to be clear the issue is with the presentation of your change, it > is not appropriate to provide a changelog which consists mainly of > widely directed personal insults especially given that it omits basic > technical content. > I understood that, but I feel incapable to come up with a reasonable changelog for this. Lothar Waßmann
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:41:04PM +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote: > Mark Brown wrote: > > Just to be clear the issue is with the presentation of your change, it > > is not appropriate to provide a changelog which consists mainly of > > widely directed personal insults especially given that it omits basic > > technical content. > I understood that, but I feel incapable to come up with a reasonable > changelog for this. Just describe in a specific, technical fashion what the problem is and what the fix does without reference to personal qualities of the various parties involved in the code being the way it is.
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-omap2-mcspi.c b/drivers/spi/spi-omap2-mcspi.c index 68441fa..cb23f5d 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-omap2-mcspi.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-omap2-mcspi.c @@ -1379,15 +1379,13 @@ static int omap2_mcspi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) goto free_master; } - r->start += regs_offset; - r->end += regs_offset; - mcspi->phys = r->start; - mcspi->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, r); if (IS_ERR(mcspi->base)) { status = PTR_ERR(mcspi->base); goto free_master; } + mcspi->phys = r->start + regs_offset; + mcspi->base += regs_offset; mcspi->dev = &pdev->dev;
Aua. This really hurts. I wonder how this could ever be admitted to the Linux kernel... Further comments suppressed because the would most likely violate the CDA. If someone should not grasp what this patch does, they should consider what happens upon unloading/reloading the kernel module. Signed-off-by: Lothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de> --- drivers/spi/spi-omap2-mcspi.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)