On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:00:47AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 03:52:25PM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 21:30 -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 07:41:59PM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > > > > I would prefer we consider the patch I sent > > > > some time ago: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7876381/ > > > Honestly I didn't look that deeply into the framework here (and I > > > also > > > don't use CONFIG_THERMAL_EMULATION), I was just fixing something that > > > was obviously wrong. > > Yeah, but that is why we need people to look the code considering all > features. :-)
Well, there are bugfixes and there are features. My patch fixed the bug in the simplest way possible; it didn't break CONFIG_THERMAL_EMULATION any further than it already was, and it'll still work if get_temp() doesn't return an error. I'd say your patch is essentially adding a feature, and IMO that's not the best way to fix a bug. You can fix the bug and *then* add the feature. Anyway, I'm not going to tell you how to run your subsystem. If your patch goes through, that's probably just as well. [...] > > hmmm, I forgot why I missed this one in the end. > > Eduardo, > > would you mind refresh and resend the patch? > > Yeah sure. I have at least three extra patch sets on thermal core on > my queue. But I would like to get first the thermal sysfs reorg in > first. This fix is one of the changes that will go on top of the thermal > sysfs reorg. So, the bugfix depends on feature work? I guess I'll check back in another year to see what the status of the bugfix is :) Brian
