07:14:00 * ** rajm has joined #cip
07:53:29 * ** toscalix has joined #cip
08:55:29 * ** vidda_ has joined #cip
09:00:24 <szlin> .o. time to meeting
09:00:36 <szlin> #startmeeting
09:00:43 <szlin> #topic roll call
09:00:52 * szlin please say hi if you're here
09:00:56 <vidda_> hi
09:01:00 <rajm> hi
09:01:01 <bwh> hi
09:01:04 <toscalix> hi
09:01:33 <gavinlai> hi
09:02:16 <szlin> #topic kernel patch review
09:02:55 <szlin> Moxa team are still reviewing 4.4.130, the result will be sent out tomorrow
09:03:25 <bwh> I'm also reviewing 4.4.130 now
09:03:44 <szlin> we've got the email from Ben, thanks for the review.
09:04:45 <szlin> it's interesting that half patches of 4.4.130 belongs to s390 arch.
09:05:02 <bwh> Ah, we can ignore them, then
09:05:52 <toscalix> Daniel Sangorrin has sent to cip-dev a review of a failing patch and a potential fix
09:06:09 <toscalix> probably bwh , you want to have a look
09:07:06 <bwh> It's a failing test case, should probably go to stable
09:07:56 <toscalix> ok
09:08:02 * ** HarryYJ_Jhou has joined #cip
09:08:03 <szlin> 2 questions from here
09:08:26 <szlin> 1. According to https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10336267/
09:08:58 <szlin> bwh: you had mentioned that this patch is "bit big for stable"
09:09:23 <bwh> Not the patch I was replying to, but the second one that I referred to
09:10:50 <szlin> bwh: yes, the patch you mentioned is in https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9919313/
09:11:36 <bwh> OK, so the question....
09:12:51 <szlin> how to define "big" ?
09:13:30 <bwh> The rule (but it is more of a guideline, not an absolute rule) is that patches should change up to 100 lines
09:15:51 <szlin> bwh: yes, I saw some patches are over 100 lines.
09:16:19 <bwh> I know, that's why I said it's a guideline
09:16:51 <szlin> bwh: thanks.
09:17:28 <szlin> 2. how to find related fix upstream
09:17:41 <szlin> for example: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/15/1104
09:18:37 <szlin> we've used some tools like cregit and email2git
09:19:27 <bwh> I think what I did there was to run "git log e279e6d98e0cf2c2fe008b3c29042b92f0e17b1d..torvalds/master drivers/tty/serial/sccnxp.c" to see changes after the first commit
09:19:53 <bwh> and then I saw there was another commit touching sccnxp_probe()
09:20:49 <szlin> bwh: thanks for sharing.
09:20:56 <bwh> The reason I looked was that the first commit added a call to clk_prepare_enable() without a matching clk_disable_unprepare(), which I found suspicious
09:21:55 <bwh> I mean, that looked like a bug
09:24:12 <szlin> Any questions?
09:24:41 <szlin> #topic Misc
09:25:43 <szlin> The linux-cip-rt mirror on gitlab.com
09:25:52 <szlin> toscalix: thanks to Agustín
09:26:25 <toscalix> wagi requested it. Easy to do
09:26:48 <szlin> any questions in misc?
09:27:17 <toscalix> szlin: I suggest you add the kernel review topic in the TSC f2f meeting at OSSJ
09:27:37 <toscalix> if the time is right, bwh might join remotely
09:28:06 <szlin> toscalix: agree
09:28:22 <szlin> #action SZ will add the kernel review topic in TSC f2f meeting at OSSJ
09:28:47 <szlin> if there are no more questions, the meeting will be end
09:28:48 <toscalix> I am starting to prepare the kernel presentation. I will include this action (kernel patch review) as one of the outcomes
09:28:53 <toscalix> of our current process
09:29:09 <toscalix> I will send the slide to the ML for review
09:29:14 <toscalix> slides
09:30:43 <szlin> #action Agustin will send the presentation slide to ML for review
09:30:50 <szlin> #endmeeting