[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101019185313.GB11088@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:53:13 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
Jeff Ohlstein <johlstei@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:42:37AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> > That's why on occasions we do transgress the established process to
> > accommodate such changes. Imagine just for a moment the patch that
> > modified the interrupt callback prototype to remove the useless pt_regs
> > argument. Obviously, it had to be done atomically to the _whole_ tree,
> > and it was agreed that this patch was to be applied at the end of the
> > merge window. But no one expected a single minute sending a CC to _all_
> > the driver authors.
>
> I don't actually know which patch your talking about, but it sounds
> pretty simple.. I'm not really addressing really simple fixes, even tho
> changing a single parameter on a function could be done broken up
> depending on what it is.
As you think that it's a simple matter, I challenge you to break this
change up in a way that doesn't result in any build breakage:
7d12e780e003f93433d49ce78cfedf4b4c52adc5
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists