linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-misc tree with the arm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:43:36 +0100
From:	Russell King <rmk@...linux.org.uk>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-misc tree with the arm tree

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:23:36AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:21:11AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:31:18AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > >
> > > >   drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_drv.c
> > > >
> > > > between commit:
> > > >
> > > >   062993b15e8e ("drm: convert DT component matching to component_match_add_release()")
> > > 
> > > Why did that one end up in the arm tree? Should it go in through
> > > drm-misc instead?
> > 
> > Mine is part of a three part patch series which is part of the component
> > helper updates (which I'm the author and maintainer of).
> > 
> > Then someone came up with an alternative way of some of part of it.
> > 
> > You can't merge the above DRM part, because that means you also need to
> > merge patch 1, which is core component stuff.
> 
> Makes sense, but generally in that case I ask Dave for an explicit ack for
> merging through another tree to avoid confusion. Lack of that is why I
> asked.

It got posted to the appropriate mailing lists with CCs, including David.
Just three people responded.

One of the responses was that people didn't like the duplication.  I
posted v2 the same day, the DT people didn't like the file location, so
I went back to v1.  That then sparked someone to start working _against_
me, cleaning up the existing duplication, and acknowledging that it'll
cause _me_ problems.

So, as it was done maliciously and intentionally to give these porblems,
I'm not budging on this.  Sorry.

There are times when working on the kernel is not very nice.  This is one
of them.

-- 
Russell King
ARM architecture Linux Kernel maintainer