linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the mfd 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: <Yh8kH5sWMkFBYQyN@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 08:00:31 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Alistair Francis <alistair@...stair23.me>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the mfd tree

On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:54:57AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My fault.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > But yes, please revert it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Will go do so now.
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you.
> > > > 
> > > > > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
> > > > 
> > > > The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
> > > > 
> > > > When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
> > > > 
> > > >     "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
> > > > 
> > > >      Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>"
> > > > 
> > > > REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YQ0fYe531yCyP4pf@google.com/
> > > > 
> > > > The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
> > > > that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
> > > > pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
> > > > the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
> > > > 
> > > > I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
> > > > better way to convey this information such that it survives through
> > > > various submission iterations.
> > > 
> > > But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that
> > > ack on the patch?  Ignore it?  I took that to mean "this is good from a
> > > mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is
> > > supposed to.
> > > 
> > > Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only?
> > > If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :)
> > 
> > It's not quite as easy as that.
> > 
> > It wouldn't be fair to the contributor to start reviews once all the
> > other patches in the set are ready to be merged.  So how would I
> > indicate that the MFD part is ready, fully expecting some of the other
> > patches in the set to be reworked and subsequent revisions are to be
> > submitted?
> 
> But from an "outside" observer, this patch series seemed to have acks
> from all maintainers, yet no one was taking it.  Which is why I picked
> it up (someone asked me to.)  Having the subsystem maintainer ack it
> implied to me that there was no problem.  Odd that you later on had one :)

I understand the problem and I'm not blaming you for your assumptions.

Can you recommend a better solution though?

To be fair this very seldom causes issues.

And now you know, you know. :)

> > > How do you want to see this merged?
> > 
> > The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
> > 
> > All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
> > 
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220131133049.77780-1-robert.marko@sartura.hr/
> > 
> > Looking at the diff, I'm not entirely sure why you took it in the
> > first place?
> 
> As I mentioned above, someone else asked me to as it was sitting around
> for quite a while with no movement.

Probably better for them to reply to the 0th patch in the first instance.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog