[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180216154704.GA29493@andrea>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:47:04 +0100
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
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, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:18:34AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> 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.
If you mean "to keep up-to-date", I'd say "No, we don't..." ;-)
My plan/hope is to add such a disclaimer together with a pointer
to Linus's tree ASAP...
Andrea
>
> Alan
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists