linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: Remove leftover dependencies on PPC

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: <CACxGe6tEBJkQQJnGjoGYKn_uDgqBd9qkPvY076PO28Szs5V=uw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:00:45 +0100
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Kevin Hao <haokexin@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: Remove leftover dependencies on PPC_OF

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 11:01 PM, Kevin Hao wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:20:59PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>
>>> powerpc qemu runs fail with the current upstream kernel.
>>> Bisect points to commit 52d996270032 ("powerpc: kill PPC_OF").
>>> Unfortunately, that commit did not remove all instances of PPC_OF.
>>> Practical impact is that the serial driver used by powerpc qemu
>>> targets is no longer built into the test kernel.
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the break. This is a dependency issue. The patch 213dce3c17a6
>> ("tty: kconfig: remove the superfluous dependency on PPC_OF") has already
>> been merged into tty-next, but still not propagate to upstream yet. I
>> failed
>> to reminder Michael of this when the pulling request is sent to Linus.
>>
>
> Guess that explains why I don't see the breakage in linux-next.
>
> This kind of problem seems to be happening a lot in this commit window.
>
> Is there a new mechanism in place which requires splitting such series
> into multiple parts ? Personally I preferred the "old" style, where
> the entire series would have been handled by one maintainer, with Acks
> from the others.

The rules haven't changed. Maintainers are doing the wrong thing. If a
series is split up into multiple parts, then maintainers *must*
coordinate to put the prerequisites into a single branch that can be
merged into each branch handling it. However, it is still almost
always better to just merge the entire series via a single tree.

Make noise whenever you see this kind of breakage because it means a
maintainer has done the wrong thing.

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/