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.