[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201204180806.16848.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:06:16 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>, arm@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
thierry.reding@...onic-design.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
axel.lin@...il.com, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
marek.vasut@...il.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
kevin.wells@....com, srinivas.bakki@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion
On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:08:19PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> > Applies to v3.4-rc3
> >
>
> This probably applies fine (the previous version did a couple days
> ago), but it's always best to submit patches against linux-next.
> The 3.4 kernel is in -rc already so this is 3.5 material.
I disagree. The patches won't get applied on -next, they get applied
on an -rc release, so they should be submitted against that version
as well. I agree that it makes sense to test patches against -next
when there is reason to believe there might be conflicts, but it's
not mandatory. When you know about conflicts against other patches
that are already in -next, I suggest listing them in the cover
letter (the patch 0/x) and suggest a resolution.
Arnd
--
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