Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:50:06 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: intel-mid: sfi_handle_*_dev() should check for pdata error code |
| |
* David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo and hpa, > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:39:52AM -0800, David Cohen wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:58:37AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:49:53AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > * David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Prevent sfi_handle_*_dev() to register device in case > > > > > > intel_mid_sfi_get_pdata() failed to execute. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since 'NULL' is a valid return value, this patch makes > > > > > > sfi_handle_*_dev() functions to use IS_ERR() to validate returned pdata. > > > > > > > > > > Is this bug triggering in practice? If not then please say so in the > > > > > changelog. If yes then is this patch desired for v3.13 merging and > > > > > also please fix the changelog to conform to the standard changelog > > > > > style: > > > > > > > > > > - first describe the symptoms of the bug - how does a user notice? > > > > > > > > > > - then describe how the code behaves today and how that is causing > > > > > the bug > > > > > > > > > > - and then only describe how it's fixed. > > > > > > > > > > The first item is the most important one - while developers > > > > > (naturally) tend to concentrate on the least important point, the last > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback :) > > > > This new patch set was done in reply to your comment: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/20/517 > > > > > > Hm, in what way does the new changelog address my first request: > > > > > > > > - first describe the symptoms of the bug - how does a user notice? > > > > > > They are all phrased as bug fixes, yet _none_ of the three changelogs > > > appears to describe specific symptoms on specific systems - they all > > > seem to talk in the abstract, with no specific connection to reality. > > > > > > That really makes it harder for patches to get into the (way too > > > narrow) attention span of maintainersm, while phrasing it like this: > > > > > > 'If an Intel-MID system boots in a specific SFI environment then it > > > will hang on bootup without this fix.' > > > > > > or: > > > > > > 'Existing Intel-MID hardware will run faster with this patch.' > > > > > > will certainly wake up maintainers like a good coffee in the morning. > > > > > > If a patch is a cleanup with no known bug fix effects then say so in > > > the title and the changelog. > > > > Fair enough. > > These patches are fixing a potential bug that exists in current kernel, > > but I triggered with patches in my development tree that depends on > > this one to be refactored first: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3109791/ > > > > I tried to describe the potential bug, but it lacks the real use case as > > you pointed out. I'll resend the patches in a way to trigger and > > describe the situation without dependiing on non-upstreamed patches yet. > > And I'll hurry up to publish my intel mid devel tree as well. > > > > I hope the new patch set tastes like good morning Brazilian coffee :) > > In order to show a practical error case fixed by this patch set > using current legacy platform code, I need to get them working > first. But it turns out legacy platform code (for Moorestown and > Medfield) aren't in a good shape at all. I found few cases of > obsolete platform data being returned from platform code (intel mid > was orphan for too long on upstream). > > I'll have to append new patches to this set "[PATCH v2 0/3] x86: > intel-mid: handle platform code error in better way", so it won't be > a simple fix of patch description.
Great, more fixes to the code is the best kind of fix to a changelog.
> In order to not block the rest of my patches on thread "[PATCH v2 > 0/4] Add Clovertrail and Merrifeld support to Intel MID", please > consider to apply them first (maybe for 3.14 if possible).
Sure, those look fine to me, but please don't forget about these fixes either.
> When I resend these patches here, we can consider apply them on > 3.14-rcX (as they are bug fixes) or just postpone them to >3.14.
Please send them ASAP, don't wait for v3.14 -rc's. We'll handle the logistics. Sending those 3 fixes with an improved changelog would be a good start.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |