Re: [PATCH 13/28] mfd: sec: Remove #ifdef guards for PM related functions

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 09 Aug 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> On 09/08/2022 18:33, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Aug 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > 
> >> On 07/08/2022 17:52, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> >>> Use the new DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() and pm_sleep_ptr() macros
> >>> to handle the .suspend/.resume callbacks.
> >>>
> >>> These macros allow the suspend and resume functions to be automatically
> >>> dropped by the compiler when CONFIG_SUSPEND is disabled, without having
> >>> to use #ifdef guards.
> >>>
> >>> The advantage is then that these functions are now always compiled
> >>> independently of any Kconfig option, and thanks to that bugs and
> >>> regressions are easier to catch.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> The address does not work. Please don't add it to commit log.
> >>
> >>> Cc: linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> This is also not really needed in commit log... it's just a mailing list...
> >>
> >> I actually never understood why people want to add to commit log, so to
> >> something which will last 10 years, Cc-ing other folks, instead of
> >> adding such tags after '---'. Imagine 10 years from now:
> >>
> >> 1. What's the point to be cced on this patch after 10 years instead of
> >> using maintainers file (the one in 10 years)? Why Cc-ing me in 10 years?
> >> If I am a maintainer of this driver in that time, I will be C-ced based
> >> on maintainers file. If I am not a maintainer in 10 years, why the heck
> >> cc-ing me based on some 10-year old commit? Just because I was a
> >> maintainer once, like 10 years ago?
> > 
> > Why would that happen?
> > 
> > These tags are only used during initial submission.
> 
> No, the tags are used in any other resends, backports etc while
> traveling through different trees. I think only stable-backports do not
> use them, but all other gfp+git-send will follow the tags.
> 
> > 
> >> 2. Or why cc-ing such people when backporting to stable?
> > 
> > That doesn't happen either.
> 
> Indeed, stable does not use these Cc.
> 
> >> It's quite a lot of unnecessary emails which many of us won't actually
> >> handle later...
> >>
> >> I sincerely admit I was once also adding such Cc-tags. But that time my
> >> employer was counting lines-of-patch (including commit log)... crazy, right?
> > 
> > Nothing wrong with adding these tags IMHO.  It's what they're for.
> > 
> > I use them when I'm maintaining a large amount of out-of-tree, but
> > to-be-upstreamed patches over several versions.  Re-applying the
> > recipients list can become pretty labour-some after several
> > iterations.
> 
> You can do it still while keeping the tags after ---. Only patch-related
> workflows strip such tags. If you cherry-pick, rebase, merge, you always
> get the content of ---.
> 
> The same as typical changelog (not cover letter but one in the patch) -
> you keep it after --- and it does not disappear.

I'll have to try this next time.

> > Adding them under the '---' doesn't work when the purpose of them is
> > to keep the recipients list in Git history.
> 
> This I understand, what I did not understand (and you did not explain)
> is what would be the purpose to keep them in Git history. What is the
> point to have them in commit log of 10 year old commit?

Here is a documented use for the tags:

 "If a person has had the opportunity to comment on a patch, but has not
  provided such comments, you may optionally add a ``Cc:`` tag to the patch."

Thus, when a recipient replies with a *-by tag, I strip out the
corresponding Cc: line.

Obviously this does not apply to mailing lists.

-- 
DEPRECATED: Please use lee@xxxxxxxxxx