From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753532AbcGYR4y (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:56:54 -0400 Received: from 216-12-86-13.cv.mvl.ntelos.net ([216.12.86.13]:59204 "EHLO brightrain.aerifal.cx" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752923AbcGYR4v (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:56:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:54:34 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: Mark Brown Cc: Daniel Lezcano , Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree Message-ID: <20160725175434.GU15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20160724153233.49f1574d@canb.auug.org.au> <57961014.7030902@linaro.org> <20160725145337.GT15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160725164209.GF11806@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160725164209.GF11806@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 05:42:09PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:53:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 03:11:48PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > > I don't know the goal of adding those patches in linux-next via your > > > tree, may be you misunderstood how linux-next works and you should > > > remove them. But if the purpose was to merge the patches, I remind you > > > that being an arch maintainer does not give you the right to apply any > > > patches, everywhere, at all cost, without review, because you want them > > > in, you must follow the process, otherwise you take the risk to upset a > > > lot of people and to be kicked out. > > > If this is upsetting people I can remove them. Last time I got > > feedback from at least one (driver) subsystem maintainer that (if I > > understood it correctly) indicated they would like to have seen the > > patch in linux-next without problems before upstreaming it through > > I think that was me and you've very much misunderstood what I was > saying. A that time you were sending new drivers during the merge > window with the apparent expectation that they would be merged during > that merge window. That's not going to happen, things need to go into > -next before the merge window. This means that you need to submit your > patches well in advance of the merge window so they can be reviewed and > ideally applied to maintainer trees before the merge window opens. > > It does not mean that you should include unreviewed code for other trees > in your -next tree, that's not the purpose of -next. What goes into > -next from each maintainer tree should be what is currently intended to > go to Linus for that tree in the next merge window. OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll remove the drivers from my for-next branch. Rich