Re: [greybus-dev] Re: [PATCH linux-next] staging: greybus:using the

[Alex Elder]

On 8/3/22 7:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 07:00:21AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > On 8/3/22 1:30 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:22:58AM +0000, cgel.zte@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > From: ye xingchen <ye.xingchen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Using pm_runtime_resume_and_get() to instade of  pm_runtime_get_sync
> > > > and pm_runtime_put_noidle.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by:  <ye.xingchen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/greybus/core.c | 3 +--
> > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/greybus/core.c b/drivers/greybus/core.c
> > > > index e546c6431877..b9063e86534b 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/greybus/core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/greybus/core.c
> > > > @@ -174,9 +174,8 @@ static int greybus_probe(struct device *dev)
> > > >    	if (!id)
> > > >    		return -ENODEV;
> > > > -	retval = pm_runtime_get_sync(&bundle->intf->dev);
> > > > +	retval = pm_runtime_resume_and_get(&bundle->intf->dev);
> > > >    	if (retval < 0) {
> > > > -		pm_runtime_put_noidle(&bundle->intf->dev);
> > > >    		return retval;
> > > >    	}
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > >
> > > Now this is just being silly.  Consider all future emails also dropped.
> >
> >
> > No Greg, please don't do this, or please undo this.
> >
> > This happened because the original poster was not a subscriber to the
> > greybus-dev mailing list.  Such messages get held until someone (me)
> > releases them after picking them out from the mostly spam that is
> > caught and held.  I have been trying to do that daily lately but
> > it's still not enough to avoid this happening.
> >
> > You were on the original addressee list.  So you got the message
> > immediately.  But the mailing list filter held it and sent it
> > again when I released it yesterday.  This is why you saw it the
> > second time.
> >
> > Ye Xingchen had nothing to do with your receiving the message twice.
>
> Ah, ok.  But they did send a number of patches like this while after I
> had sent my first request to not do patches in this format anymore,
> which is what caused my response here.

I might have been mistaken.  The message was sent on two consecutive
days.  But the second might have been sent because the first got
held up in the queue until I released.

Anyway, Ye Xingchen, you should know not to re-send this patch until
you have at least reviewed Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst,
as Greg suggested.

In fact, you should *not* re-post this patch at all.  Someone else
from your organization posted exactly the same thing in April and it
was rejected.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yl+948unOoDFdLe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

I would say your Zeal Robot needs to be taught that sometimes there
are exceptions to the "rules" it is trying to enforce.

					-Alex

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> _______________________________________________
> greybus-dev mailing list -- greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to greybus-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx