On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 01:55:34AM -0400, Nick Krause wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2014 at 12:56:57AM -0400, Nicholas Krause wrote: >> >> I am adding the fixes to the tree send for adding debugging to the kernel >> >> tree from a patch sent in 2013 on the the 3.6 release. The patch adds >> >> debugging over xhci capable debugging usb ports and needed to be updated >> >> into the latest rc tree. The patch was first sent in this thread, >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=135948845511047. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > If you send one more patch, I am going to have to ask vger.kernel.org to >> > ban you from their servers. You are actively bothering people and >> > causing problems and wasting time. >> > >> > You have been told _numerous_ times to stop, yet you refuse to listen. >> > You hold the record for getting kicked out of the Eudyptula challenge in >> > a matter of hours, something no one else has ever had happen. You >> > ignore lots of very valid comments and suggestions, for no good reason. >> > You flail about, making mistakes that are now starting to bother users, >> > which is not acceptable at all. >> > >> > I will not respond to any more of your emails, and ask everyone else to >> > now stop as well. >> > >> > good bye. >> > >> > *plonk* >> > >> > greg k-h >> >> Greg, >> You haven't even checked my patch, our you just going to assume it's wrong? > > > I don't know this code and I'm not interested in changing that, so just I'm > just pointing out obvious problems. > > 1. You somehow managed to have changes like his all over the patch: > -#define TT_HS_OVERHEAD (31 + 94) > -#define TT_DMI_OVERHEAD (25 + 12) > +#define TT_HS_OVERHEAD (31 94) > +#define TT_DMI_OVERHEAD (25 12) > > Clearly, this will cause compilation problems. But maybe this weird > corruption happened after you tested your patch? > > 2. In the original patch there were some additions to struct xhci_hcd, > e.g. dbg_cap_reg. > > Let's look at a random user: > +void xhci_teardown_dbg_cap(struct xhci_hcd *xhci, struct device *dev) > +{ > + u32 val; > + > + xhci_dbg(xhci, "xhci_teardown_dbg_cap()\n"); > + if (!xhci->dbg_cap_regs) > + return; > > xhci is a pointer to struct xhci_hcd. > > Except in your patch all these additions landed in struct xhci_dbg_cap_ctx, > thus this could not possibly compile. > > But what's the most important thing here is this: writing a compilable > patch is not a problem, writing a working patch is. > > Forward porting, like this one, demands that you: > - understand the patch as applied to the original tree > - understand current state of the tree and how it influences the patch > > As such, foward porting is typically not a task for beginners. > > I can only recommend one last time you leave the kernel alone for the > time being and focus on userspace. > > There. This is my last reply, have fun. > > -- > Mateusz Guzik Matueuz , I am going to not send any more patches for now at least. I am going to just read the lkml. Regards Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
