On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 4:55 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> +Cc: some people who involved in different kernel source checkers
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:19 PM Sakari Ailus
> <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 04:00:29PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > The "ret" variable isn't set on the no-op path where we are setting to
> > > on/off and it's in the on or off state already.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 91807efbe8ec ("media: i2c: add OV02A10 image sensor driver")
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> > This issue has been fixed by another patch here:
> >
> > <URL:https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/patch/20201204082037.1658297-1-arnd@xxxxxxxxxx/>
>
> This has been reported by 3 or 4 different people. I'm wondering if
> it's possible to introduce a common database to somehow reduce the
> amount of patches against the same findings.
+workflows and kernelci re multiple reports/patches for the same kernel bug
I think KernelCI DB effort has a goal of fighting this duplication of
efforts. But as far as I understand the exact mechanism for
deduplication is an open question.
