Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1331438 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] regulator: vexpress: rename vexpress regulator implementation

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] regulator: vexpress: rename vexpress regulator  implementation Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-02-10 20:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] regulator: vexpress: rename vexpress regulator  implementation Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-02-15 19:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] regulator: vexpress: rename vexpress regulator  implementation Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-02-15 19:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] regulator: vexpress: rename vexpress regulator  implementation Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-02-15 19:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] regulator: vexpress: rename vexpress regulator  implementation Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-02-15 22:10 +0100

#1331438 — Re: [PATCH] regulator: vexpress: rename vexpress regulator implementation

Hi Mark,

On 29/01/16 17:37, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> The vexpress regulator implementation is currently just called vexpress.
> This is a problem because it clashes with another module with the same
> name in hardware monitors.
>
> This patch renames the vexpress regulator implementation to
> vexpress-regulator so that there will be no clash in the module namespace.
>

Can you take this patch for v4.6 ? It was reported @[1]

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/7

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1334694

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:49:54PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 29/01/16 17:37, Sudeep Holla wrote:

> >The vexpress regulator implementation is currently just called vexpress.
> >This is a problem because it clashes with another module with the same
> >name in hardware monitors.

> >This patch renames the vexpress regulator implementation to
> >vexpress-regulator so that there will be no clash in the module namespace.

> Can you take this patch for v4.6 ? It was reported @[1]

Please allow a reasonable time for review.  People get busy, go on
holiday, attend conferences and so on so unless there is some reason for
urgency (like critical bug fixes) please allow at least a couple of
weeks for review.  Sending content free pings just adds to the mail
volume (if they are seen at all) and if something has gone wrong you'll
have to resend the patches anyway.

> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/7

Please include human readable descriptions of things like commits and
issues being discussed in e-mail in your mails, this makes them much
easier for humans to read especially when they have no internet access.
I do frequently catch up on my mail on flights or while otherwise
travelling so this is even more pressing for me than just being about
making things a bit easier to read.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1334696

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:10:17PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:49:54PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:

> > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/7

> Please include human readable descriptions of things like commits and
> issues being discussed in e-mail in your mails, this makes them much
> easier for humans to read especially when they have no internet access.
> I do frequently catch up on my mail on flights or while otherwise
> travelling so this is even more pressing for me than just being about
> making things a bit easier to read.

...plus if you're using lkml.org it fails so often that it's likely
people won't be able to tell what you're talking about anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1334711

On 15/02/16 18:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 06:49:54PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 29/01/16 17:37, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>>> The vexpress regulator implementation is currently just called vexpress.
>>> This is a problem because it clashes with another module with the same
>>> name in hardware monitors.
>
>>> This patch renames the vexpress regulator implementation to
>>> vexpress-regulator so that there will be no clash in the module namespace.
>
>> Can you take this patch for v4.6 ? It was reported @[1]
>
> Please allow a reasonable time for review.  People get busy, go on
> holiday, attend conferences and so on so unless there is some reason for
> urgency (like critical bug fixes) please allow at least a couple of
> weeks for review.  Sending content free pings just adds to the mail
> volume (if they are seen at all) and if something has gone wrong you'll
> have to resend the patches anyway.
>

Sorry for that. It was not a ping rather I just wanted to provide the
reference for the report since I realized I missed that initially.
I just asked the question along with that and didn't mean to show any
urgency. I do understand this patch is clearly not at all an urgent/
critical fix.

>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/7
>
> Please include human readable descriptions of things like commits and
> issues being discussed in e-mail in your mails, this makes them much
> easier for humans to read especially when they have no internet access.
> I do frequently catch up on my mail on flights or while otherwise
> travelling so this is even more pressing for me than just being about
> making things a bit easier to read.
>

Understood. I knew lkml.org is broken if we tried very old links but
expected to work at-least for couple of month old patches. Anyways
hopefully [1] still works.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg18316.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1334827

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 06:31:29PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:

> Understood. I knew lkml.org is broken if we tried very old links but
> expected to work at-least for couple of month old patches. Anyways
> hopefully [1] still works.

It's not old links in particular AFAICT, just general instability.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web