| Message ID | 20190211105835.16851-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | tpm: remove tpm_dev_wq_lock | expand |
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:58:35AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Added in commit > > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > but never actually used it. > > Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> > Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> You should use Fixes-tag e.g. Fixes: <12 first chars from SHA-1> ("<short summary>") /Jarkko
On 2/11/19 2:58 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Added in commit > > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > but never actually used it. It was used in one of the early versions of this patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10559151/ Not needed later. Acked-by: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> Thanks,
On 2019-02-11 16:11:45 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:58:35AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Added in commit > > > > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > > > but never actually used it. > > > > Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> > > Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > You should use Fixes-tag e.g. > > Fixes: <12 first chars from SHA-1> ("<short summary>") Is this the only reason why it has not been picked up? A fixes line which triggers stable backports for something that does need to be backported? > /Jarkko Sebastian
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:03:13PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2019-02-11 16:11:45 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:58:35AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > Added in commit > > > > > > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > > > > > but never actually used it. > > > > > > Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> > > > Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> > > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > > > You should use Fixes-tag e.g. > > > > Fixes: <12 first chars from SHA-1> ("<short summary>") > > Is this the only reason why it has not been picked up? A fixes line > which triggers stable backports for something that does need to be > backported? Fully agree with you. Frankly, I don't really remember anymore why I responded that way. My guess is that I responded that to a worng patch. Please just ping immediatelly. Sometimes when dealing with dozens of patches this kind of human error might happen. In any case, the patch is applied. /Jarkko
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:39:42PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:03:13PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2019-02-11 16:11:45 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:58:35AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > Added in commit > > > > > > > > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > > > > > > > but never actually used it. > > > > > > > > Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > > > > > You should use Fixes-tag e.g. > > > > > > Fixes: <12 first chars from SHA-1> ("<short summary>") > > > > Is this the only reason why it has not been picked up? A fixes line > > which triggers stable backports for something that does need to be > > backported? > > Fully agree with you. Frankly, I don't really remember anymore why I > responded that way. My guess is that I responded that to a worng patch. > > Please just ping immediatelly. Sometimes when dealing with dozens of > patches this kind of human error might happen. > > In any case, the patch is applied. OK, so. Gave a relook at this: This gives checkpatch.pl error: 0012-tpm-remove-tpm_dev_wq_lock.patch ------------------------------------- ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 9e1b74a63f77 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation")' #8: 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 7 lines checked NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace. Please send me a new patch with a legit fixes line. It is a fix to regression even if it is a cosmetic one. I'll drop the current patch from my tree and apply a new one once I get it from you. Thanks. /Jarkko
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:24:19PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:39:42PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:03:13PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2019-02-11 16:11:45 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:58:35AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > Added in commit > > > > > > > > > > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > > > > > > > > > but never actually used it. > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > > > > > > > You should use Fixes-tag e.g. > > > > > > > > Fixes: <12 first chars from SHA-1> ("<short summary>") > > > > > > Is this the only reason why it has not been picked up? A fixes line > > > which triggers stable backports for something that does need to be > > > backported? > > > > Fully agree with you. Frankly, I don't really remember anymore why I > > responded that way. My guess is that I responded that to a worng patch. > > > > Please just ping immediatelly. Sometimes when dealing with dozens of > > patches this kind of human error might happen. > > > > In any case, the patch is applied. > > OK, so. Gave a relook at this: > > This gives checkpatch.pl error: > > 0012-tpm-remove-tpm_dev_wq_lock.patch > ------------------------------------- > ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 9e1b74a63f77 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation")' > #8: > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 7 lines checked > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace. > > Please send me a new patch with a legit fixes line. It is a fix to > regression even if it is a cosmetic one. > > I'll drop the current patch from my tree and apply a new one once > I get it from you. > > Thanks. > > /Jarkko AFAIK cc stable triggers stable backport, not fixes line alone (not 100% sure about this though). Anyway even my original response was meant to this patch I recall now that I bumped into that checkpatch error. /Jarkko
sorry for that late reply, was traveling… On 2019-10-28 22:26:37 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > OK, so. Gave a relook at this: > > > > This gives checkpatch.pl error: > > > > 0012-tpm-remove-tpm_dev_wq_lock.patch > > ------------------------------------- > > ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 9e1b74a63f77 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation")' > > #8: > > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > > > total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 7 lines checked > > > > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to > > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace. > > > > Please send me a new patch with a legit fixes line. It is a fix to > > regression even if it is a cosmetic one. > > > > I'll drop the current patch from my tree and apply a new one once > > I get it from you. Can you please explain what is wrong with that one? It is exactly as suggested by the error line. > > Thanks. > > > > /Jarkko > > AFAIK cc stable triggers stable backport, not fixes line alone (not > 100% sure about this though). Anyway even my original response was > meant to this patch I recall now that I bumped into that checkpatch > error. The cc: for stable and fixes are high indicators for it to be considered. These days even a few keywords in the commit message might let Sasha's script decide to pick/suggest a patch for stable. > /Jarkko Sebastian
On Mon Nov 04 19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >sorry for that late reply, was traveling… > >On 2019-10-28 22:26:37 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> > OK, so. Gave a relook at this: >> > >> > This gives checkpatch.pl error: >> > >> > 0012-tpm-remove-tpm_dev_wq_lock.patch >> > ------------------------------------- >> > ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit 9e1b74a63f77 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation")' >> > #8: >> > 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") >> > >> > total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 7 lines checked >> > >> > NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to >> > mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace. >> > >> > Please send me a new patch with a legit fixes line. It is a fix to >> > regression even if it is a cosmetic one. >> > >> > I'll drop the current patch from my tree and apply a new one once >> > I get it from you. > >Can you please explain what is wrong with that one? It is exactly as >suggested by the error line. > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > /Jarkko >> >> AFAIK cc stable triggers stable backport, not fixes line alone (not >> 100% sure about this though). Anyway even my original response was >> meant to this patch I recall now that I bumped into that checkpatch >> error. > >The cc: for stable and fixes are high indicators for it to be >considered. These days even a few keywords in the commit message might >let Sasha's script decide to pick/suggest a patch for stable. > >> /Jarkko > >Sebastian It looks like checkpatch is expecting the word commit to precede the hash on the same line. I get no errors with the following: Added in commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") but never actually used it. Fixes: 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
On 2019-11-04 10:37:09 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > It looks like checkpatch is expecting the word commit to precede the hash on the same line. > I get no errors with the following: That would explain it. That is however not what the TIP tree and other people do not to mention that reading wise it makes sense to keep the word `commit' as part of the sentence and add the hash in the next line. > Added in > > commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > > but never actually used it. > > Fixes: 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") > Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> > Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Sebastian
On Mon Nov 04 19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >On 2019-11-04 10:37:09 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: >> It looks like checkpatch is expecting the word commit to precede the hash on the same line. >> I get no errors with the following: > >That would explain it. That is however not what the TIP tree and other >people do not to mention that reading wise it makes sense to keep the >word `commit' as part of the sentence and add the hash in the next line. > Yes it reads better. What about the following? Added in commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation"), but never actually used it. And then add the Fixes: line above the Cc: and Signed-off-by: ? >> Added in >> >> commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") >> >> but never actually used it. >> >> Fixes: 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") >> Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> >> Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> >> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > >Sebastian
On 2019-11-04 11:27:32 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Mon Nov 04 19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2019-11-04 10:37:09 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > It looks like checkpatch is expecting the word commit to precede the hash on the same line. > > > I get no errors with the following: > > > > That would explain it. That is however not what the TIP tree and other > > people do not to mention that reading wise it makes sense to keep the > > word `commit' as part of the sentence and add the hash in the next line. > > > > Yes it reads better. What about the following? > > Added in commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking > operation"), but never actually used it. > > And then add the Fixes: line above the Cc: and Signed-off-by: ? Can please get over with? It is a simple patch. It has simple description. Sebastian
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:10:41PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2019-11-04 11:27:32 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > On Mon Nov 04 19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2019-11-04 10:37:09 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > It looks like checkpatch is expecting the word commit to precede the hash on the same line. > > > > I get no errors with the following: > > > > > > That would explain it. That is however not what the TIP tree and other > > > people do not to mention that reading wise it makes sense to keep the > > > word `commit' as part of the sentence and add the hash in the next line. > > > > > > > Yes it reads better. What about the following? > > > > Added in commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking > > operation"), but never actually used it. > > > > And then add the Fixes: line above the Cc: and Signed-off-by: ? > > Can please get over with? It is a simple patch. It has simple > description. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20191028202419.GA7214@linux.intel.com/ I'm also cool with cc stable as long as the commit is message has the correct format. /Jarkko
On 2019-11-07 20:35:03 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:10:41PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2019-11-04 11:27:32 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > On Mon Nov 04 19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > On 2019-11-04 10:37:09 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > It looks like checkpatch is expecting the word commit to precede the hash on the same line. > > > > > I get no errors with the following: > > > > > > > > That would explain it. That is however not what the TIP tree and other > > > > people do not to mention that reading wise it makes sense to keep the > > > > word `commit' as part of the sentence and add the hash in the next line. > > > > > > > > > > Yes it reads better. What about the following? > > > > > > Added in commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking > > > operation"), but never actually used it. > > > > > > And then add the Fixes: line above the Cc: and Signed-off-by: ? > > > > Can please get over with? It is a simple patch. It has simple > > description. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20191028202419.GA7214@linux.intel.com/ > > I'm also cool with cc stable as long as the commit is message has the > correct format. This is _really_ getting ridiculous. Holding back a simple patch just because checkpatch says that the word `commit' is not in a new line. It is more readable that way not to mention line with the commit id is getting really long. This is a stupid checkpatch rule which is enforced here. > /Jarkko Sebastian
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:16:12PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2019-11-07 20:35:03 [+0200], Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:10:41PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2019-11-04 11:27:32 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > On Mon Nov 04 19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > On 2019-11-04 10:37:09 [-0700], Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > It looks like checkpatch is expecting the word commit to precede the hash on the same line. > > > > > > I get no errors with the following: > > > > > > > > > > That would explain it. That is however not what the TIP tree and other > > > > > people do not to mention that reading wise it makes sense to keep the > > > > > word `commit' as part of the sentence and add the hash in the next line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes it reads better. What about the following? > > > > > > > > Added in commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking > > > > operation"), but never actually used it. > > > > > > > > And then add the Fixes: line above the Cc: and Signed-off-by: ? > > > > > > Can please get over with? It is a simple patch. It has simple > > > description. > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20191028202419.GA7214@linux.intel.com/ > > > > I'm also cool with cc stable as long as the commit is message has the > > correct format. > > This is _really_ getting ridiculous. Holding back a simple patch just > because checkpatch says that the word `commit' is not in a new line. It > is more readable that way not to mention line with the commit id is > getting really long. This is a stupid checkpatch rule which is enforced > here. I'm not sure why formatting a commit message properly is ridicilous. If it is a bug fix, then it should have fixes tag. /Jarkko
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c index 5eecad233ea1d..eca96e8c669c9 100644 --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ #include "tpm-dev.h" static struct workqueue_struct *tpm_dev_wq; -static DEFINE_MUTEX(tpm_dev_wq_lock); static void tpm_async_work(struct work_struct *work) {
Added in commit 9e1b74a63f776 ("tpm: add support for nonblocking operation") but never actually used it. Cc: Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@intel.com> Cc: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> --- drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)