Re: [PATCH] input synaptics-rmi4: Use put_device() and device_type.release() to free storage.

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:17:59AM +0100, Christopher Heiny wrote:

On 02/11/2014 06:49 PM, Courtney Cavin wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:17:57AM +0100, Christopher Heiny wrote:

quoted

On 02/11/2014 05:59 PM, Courtney Cavin wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:13:30AM +0100, Christopher Heiny wrote:

quoted

For rmi_sensor and rmi_function device_types, use put_device() and
the assocated device_type.release() function to clean up related
structures and storage in the correct and safe order.

Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny <redacted>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <redacted>
Cc: Linux Walleij <redacted>
Cc: David Herrmann <redacted>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <redacted>
Cc: Courtney Cavin <redacted>

I'm not a huge fan of you taking my patches, re-formatting them and
sending them as your own.  More out of principle then actually caring
about ownership.  You at least cc'd me on this one....

Sorry - no slight was intended at all!  I wasn't sure what the protocol
was for picking up an idea from someone else's patch and building on
that idea, so I just went with the CC.  I definitely prefer to attribute
sources correctly - if you could clarify what should be done (beyond the
CC) to acknowledge the author of the original patch, I'd appreciate it.

Sure.  In short, follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches , esp. section
12) Sign your work.

Generally the patch should read something like the following:

  From: Original Author [off-list ref]

  *BLURB*

  Signed-off-by: Original Author [off-list ref]
  [additional.author@example.org: changed x and y]
  Signed-off-by: Additional Author [off-list ref]

Assuming the original author actually signed-off the patch in the first
place, of course.  The square bracket part is optional, but can be
helpful for reviewers.

I'm somewhat surprised that you are not aware of this procedure, as this
is how Dmitry has replied to some of your patches in the past.'

Thanks very much.

I was actually aware of that, but thought the work was sufficiently 
different from your original patch that applying your Signed-off-by: to 
it wouldn't be appropriate (I dislike being signed off on things I don't 
necessarily agree with as much as lack of attribution).  I'll be less 
paranoid about that in the future.

I don't see how they were different enough, when clearly these two
patches attempt to fix the same bugs, using the same methods with
slightly modified flow.  Perhaps the patches may be small enough
to be interpreted either way, but at the very least reported-by (since
this is a bug-fix) or suggested-by is more appropriate than Cc.  This is
a public list, so I'm sure someone will tell you when you are wrong, if
nothing else.

Along the same topic, I guess I should also mention that it is typically
frowned upon to takeover someone else's patches without giving them
due-time to fix any outstanding review comments.

In both of these cases, you neither asked for me to submit the patches
separately, outside of my DT-series, nor to make any specific changes.
I was under the impression that you were still participating in the
discussion for that series.

While it is apparent that we have differing views on how this particular
driver development should proceed, and we should definitely discuss
them, please do not think that I'm not willing to apply my patches
individually to what's in tree now.

My main concern here is that I cannot actually properly test this driver
without DT, non-gpio irq, and regulator support.  Likewise, pre-3.7 is
ancient, and would require back-porting hundreds of changes.

-Courtney