linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc 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:   Tue, 29 May 2018 10:55:25 +0200
From:   Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>,
        Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc
 tree



On 05/29/2018 10:39 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 29/05/18 09:16, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>> Hi Marc
>>
>> On 05/29/2018 09:47 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>>> Hi Stephen
>>>>
>>>> On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in:
>>>>>
>>>>>      arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
>>>>>
>>>>> between commit:
>>>>>
>>>>>      3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>>>>
>>>>>      5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c")
>>>>>
>>>>> from the irqchip tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>>>>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>>>>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>>>>> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>>>>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>>>>> complex conflicts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion
>>>> is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my
>>>> role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule
>>>> (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine
>>>> maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I
>>>> will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ?
>>> Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define
>>> what you want to do?
>>
>> Sorry I don't understand your reply. I just say that for series
>> containing DT patches + drivers patches, to my point of view it is more
>> safe that driver patches are taken by sub-system maintainer (you in this
>> case) and that I take DT patches in my tree.
> And I'm happy to let you deal with these patches. I'm just asking you
> sync with Ludovic to split the series on whichever boundary you wish to
> enforce.
ok

> 
>>> In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.
>>>
>> Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue.
> Well, you seem to have a strong opinion about who deals with what. I'll
> let Ludovic repost what you and him decide should go via the irqchip tree.

It's not a "strong" opinion just my point of view and maybe not the good 
one. I thought that's the way of working was like I explained. If you 
prefer 2 series (one for driver patches and another one for DT patches) 
I will be happy with that.

Ludovic, what is your opinion ?

Regards
Alexandre

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
>