Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: core: remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl | From | Saurav Girepunje <> | Date | Sat, 25 Sep 2021 11:44:18 +0530 |
| |
On 20/09/21 7:24 pm, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > On Monday, September 20, 2021 2:39:10 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:31:28PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: >>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 1:32:21 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote: >>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 20, 2021 12:36:06 PM CEST Greg KH wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 10:52:50PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13/09/21 9:48 pm, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:39PM +0530, Saurav Girepunje > wrote: >>>>>>>>> Remove the function power_saving_wk_hdl() as it just calling >>>>>>>>> the rtw_ps_processor().Instead of power_saving_wk_hdl() call >>> directly >>>>>>>>> rtw_ps_processor(). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Saurav Girepunje <saurav.girepunje@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also does not apply to my tree. Please rebase against my > staging- >>> next >>>>>>>> branch and resend. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> greg k-h >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Greg, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I always do rebase against your staging-testing branch. Can you > help >>> me >>>>> to >>>>>>> understand.When we need to rebase on staging-next. Do we always > need >>> to >>>>>>> rebase against staging-next..! >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you should. When you are working on code that lots of other >>> people >>>>>> are working on, there will be conflicts like this, and you just > need to >>>>>> stay on top of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> greg k-h >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, Greg. I'm confused... :( >>>>> >>>>> As far as I know, everyone here make patches for staging-testing. >>>> >>>> Nope. It's only you. >>> >>> And Saurav (at least) :) >>> >> >> Nope. Saurav is working against something old. You can see the >> #ifdef CONFIG_88EU_P2P stuff that was removed in commit 102243f893ec >> ("staging: r8188eu: Remove conditionals CONFIG_88EU_{AP_MODE,P2P}") was >> applied. >> > > Oh, I didn't notice that he was working against something old. > > My attention was drawn only by the fact that Greg talked about staging-next, > while I was expecting something like "please rebase and resend against my > current staging-testing". > >>> I've been misled and in turn I misled Pavel. This is due to a guide in >>> kernelnewbies.org that explicitly says to use staging-testing: >>> >>> https://kernelnewbies.org/OutreachyfirstpatchSetup >>> >>> In that page the is a section ("Set up your Linux kernel code > repository") >>> which says: "[] Then use the revision control system called git to clone > Greg >>> Kroah-Hartman's staging tree repository: git clone -b staging-testing > git:// >>> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/staging.git". >>> >> >> Huh... >> >> Those aren't *bad* instructions. Working against testing-next is fine, >> but just be aware that it can rebase. > > Good to know. For what the series Pavel and I submitted we'll complete our > work, that is sending v9, against current staging-testing. I suppose we'd > better stay consistent. > > For new work, since you make notice that we have to "be aware that it > [staging-testing] can rebase", we'll switch to staging-next. > > Thanks for pointing this out. > > Regards, > > Fabio > >> >> regards, >> dan carpenter >> >> > > > >
I will also do rebase to staging-next.
Thanks Greg, Dan for you clarification. Thanks Fabio for your input .
Regards, Saurav
| |