linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the driver-core tree with the sound-asoc 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20141110100224.GG3815@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:02:24 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the driver-core tree with the
 sound-asoc tree

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 02:07:19PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 03:51:42PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> > I assume that there was a good reason not to farm these patches out to
> > their respective maintainers?

> Yes, It was easier to hit everything in one tree, at one time, so that
> is what Wolfram did.  Sorry for the merge conflicts, I didn't think
> anyone would be adding .driver attributes to files after they had been
> added to the tree.

People are rather more likely to do that if they know that not adding
driver attributes is a thing, and that's more likely to happen if you
tell people that this change is happening, for example by sending the
patches to them.  This merge conflict was the first I'd heard of this
being something we wanted to do.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)