On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:58:04AM +0000, Patrick Uiterwijk wrote: > Hi Vivien, > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Vivien Didelot > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Andrew, Patrick, > > > > Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote: > >>> Hi Patrick, > >>> > >>> Two comments below. > >>> > >>> Patrick Uiterwijk <[email protected]> writes: > >>> > >>> > +static int mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes(struct dsa_switch *ds) > >>> > >>> Since this function assumes the SMI lock is already held, its name > >>> should be prefixed with _ by convention (_mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes). > >> > >> We decided to drop at, since nearly everything would end up with a _ > >> prefix. The assert_smi_lock() should find any missing locks, and > >> lockdep/deadlocks will make it clear when the lock is taken twice. > > > > OK, I didn't know that. This makes sense. There is no need to respin a > > v3 only for my previous &= comment then. > > Does that mean the merger will fix this up? > Or that I'll roll a v3 when I get a reviewed-by for the second patch?
Hi Patrick Role a v3, and you can add Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> as well as Viviens for patch #1. Andrew
