Hi Linus,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:01 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 11:23 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This patch series fixes various (mostly harmless) issues introduced by
> > commit 3027743f83f867d8 ("gpio: Remove VLA from gpiolib").
> >
> > As per the "one patch should fix one issue"-policy, this series contains 3
> > patches, although they all have the same Fixes: tag.
> >
> > W.r.t. propagating errors: while gpiod_set_array_value_complex() and its
> > callers can now return an error code, this is currently limited to -ENOMEM.
> > Actual failures setting a GPIO output value cannot be propagated, as
> > gpio_chip.set() still returns void. Do you want to change that?
> > E.g. gen_74x164_set_value() can fail.
> >
> > Feel free to fold patches if deemed appropriate.
>
> What I want to know is if these patches drive a truck through Janusz patch
> set augmenting the array functions that I definately also plan to merge for
> this kernel cycle.
>
> Issues should be fixed of course, but if some of them already disappear
> if I apply Janusz patches, I'd rather postpone ... is it going to be hard
> to redo the cleanups on top of his patches?
I can respin afterwards. Just a few changed lines of context.
One question is if the stable team plans to backport the VLA removal (and
my fixes) or not...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
