[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1802161015010.1402-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:18:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mingo@...nel.org>,
<parri.andrea@...il.com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
<npiggin@...il.com>, <dhowells@...hat.com>, <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
<luc.maranget@...ia.fr>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: Trial of conflict resolution of Alan's patch
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My forward-port patch doesn't apply to the "lkmm" branch.
> It looks like "linux-kernel-hardware.cat" is intentionally omitted there.
> Am I guessing right?
>
> If this is the case, I can prepare a patch to be applied to "lkmm".
> But I can't compose a proper change log. So I'd like Alan to post
> a patch with my SOB appended. Does this approach sound reasonable?
The patch is not yet ready to be merged. At the very least, I need to
include an update to explanation.txt along with it. When it is all
ready, I will rebase it on Paul's repository and post it.
Which reminds me: Now that the material has been accepted into the
kernel, do we need to keep the github repository? It has the
linux-kernel-hardware.cat file, but otherwise it seems to be redundant.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists