linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2d647302-0be8-555b-8063-06b0d2d72772@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 May 2018 09:39:15 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>,
        Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the irqchip tree with the arm-soc
 tree

On 29/05/18 09:16, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> Hi Marc
> 
> On 05/29/2018 09:47 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 29/05/18 08:41, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen
>>>
>>> On 05/29/2018 07:52 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the irqchip tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>     arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>>     3c00436fdb20 ("ARM: dts: stm32: add USBPHYC support to stm32mp157c")
>>>>
>>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>>     5f0e9d2557d7 ("ARM: dts: stm32: Add exti support for stm32mp157c")
>>>>
>>>> from the irqchip tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>>>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>>>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>>>> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>>>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>>>> complex conflicts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the fix (I will reorder nodes in a future patch). My opinion
>>> is that all STM32 DT patches should come through my STM32 tree. It is my
>>> role to fix this kind of conflicts. I thought it was a common rule
>>> (driver patches go to sub-system maintainer tree and DT to the Machine
>>> maintainer). For incoming next-series which contain DT+driver patches I
>>> will indicate clearly that I take DT patch. I'm right ?
>> Happy to oblige. Can you make sure you sync up with Ludovic and define
>> what you want to do?
> 
> Sorry I don't understand your reply. I just say that for series 
> containing DT patches + drivers patches, to my point of view it is more 
> safe that driver patches are taken by sub-system maintainer (you in this 
> case) and that I take DT patches in my tree.
And I'm happy to let you deal with these patches. I'm just asking you
sync with Ludovic to split the series on whichever boundary you wish to
enforce.

>> In the meantime, I'm dropping the series altogether.
>>
> Why? We could keep it as Stephen fixed the merge issue.
Well, you seem to have a strong opinion about who deals with what. I'll
let Ludovic repost what you and him decide should go via the irqchip tree.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...