Hi Vivien, On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote: > Hi Andrew, Patrick, > > Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes: > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote: >>> Hi Patrick, >>> >>> Two comments below. >>> >>> Patrick Uiterwijk <patr...@puiterwijk.org> writes: >>> >>> > +static int mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes(struct dsa_switch *ds) >>> >>> Since this function assumes the SMI lock is already held, its name >>> should be prefixed with _ by convention (_mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes). >> >> We decided to drop at, since nearly everything would end up with a _ >> prefix. The assert_smi_lock() should find any missing locks, and >> lockdep/deadlocks will make it clear when the lock is taken twice. > > OK, I didn't know that. This makes sense. There is no need to respin a > v3 only for my previous &= comment then.
Does that mean the merger will fix this up? Or that I'll roll a v3 when I get a reviewed-by for the second patch? Thanks, Patrick
