linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion

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, 18 Apr 2012 12:36:04 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	srinivas.bakki@....com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	thierry.reding@...onic-design.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kevin.wells@....com, marek.vasut@...il.com, arm@...nel.org,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, axel.lin@...il.com,
	dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:06:16AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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.
> 

I'm not sure I understand.  I thought everyone used the develop
against linux-next and backport the fixes model.  Are we going to
try merge these in 3.4?  It will still spend some time in linux-next
before we submit it, right?

To be honest, I mostly am familiar with staging/ where driver wide
white space cleanups are the norm.  Working against linux-next is
the only option for us or otherwise the conflicts would be too
much.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/