linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mfd tree with Linus' 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]

Message-Id: <20120324173152.494DA3E0A26@localhost>
Date:	Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:31:52 +0000
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mfd tree with Linus' tree

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:41:39 +0100, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:32:37PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Samuel,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the mfd tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/mfd/twl-core.c between commits 5769089ac725 ("mfd: twl-core.c:
> > Fix the number of interrupts managed by twl4030"), 75294957be1d
> > ("irq_domain: Remove 'new' irq_domain in favour of the ppc one") and
> > 964dba283439 ("devicetree: Add empty of_platform_populate() for !
> > CONFIG_OF_ADDRESS (sparc)") from Linus' tree and commits 9e1786202704
> > ("mfd: Make twl-core not depend on pdata->irq_base/end") and 78518ffa08fc
> > ("mfd: Move twl-core IRQ allocation into twl[4030|6030]-irq files") from
> > the mfd tree.
> > 
> > I *think* that the right thing to do is to use the version from the mfd
> > tree ...
> That's correct.
> I have a for-next-merge branch where I usually have the merge conflicts with
> Linus tree fixed, in case you're interested.
> 
> 
> > I do wonder why I only got this now (in the merge window) ...
> I got a pull request from Benoit a couple days before the merge window opened.
> Then I realized part of the pull request contained a merge of one of Grant's
> branch. So I wanted to wait for Grant's code to get in before picking the mfd
> work on top of it. I didn't want to send a pull request to Linus with a merge
> point for something that would have been already merged. Maybe I was wrong,
> you tell me.

It should have gone into linux-next before then.  Waiting for my tree
to hit linus' tree defeats the purpose of linux-next.  Now you're
branch hasn't had any testing and therefore is a risky merge.

If you've got a branch you intend to send to Linus, then it really
needs to be in linux-next.  If that branch depends on another branch,
that's fine; you can still hold off actually sending the pull req to
Linus until the dependency makes it in.  Better yet, *ask*.

g.

--
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/