From: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with the watchdog tree
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:24:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170503142429.GA26229@spo001.leaseweb.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170502223518.GE26866@fury>
Hi All,
> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:58:22PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:30:46PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:57:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:12:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > > >> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From my perspective, the most direct solution would be to drop these two patches
> > > > > from the watchdog tree and let them go through the platform driver x86 tree with
> > > > > Guenter's Acked-by. If you have additional patches which depend on these two,
> > > > > then if you will provide an immutable branch we can merge, we can do that too
> > > > > (but I try to keep the number of external merges to a minimum - which is
> > > > > becoming increasingly difficult lately for some reason).
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for not being in doubt, I just decided that Ack from Guenter
> > > > means that default case is to go through PDx86 tree without any
> > > > additional agreement.
> > >
> > > I assumed that was the case, yes. I read through the thread and would have
> > > thought the same. As Guenter is directing us to Wim, I think the MAINTAINERS
> > > file doesn't really capture the logistics of the watchdog maintainer model, as a
> >
> > Now I am confused. Please apologize my lack of understanding.
> >
> > I am listed as "Reviewer", not "Maintainer", for watchdog drivers.
>
> :facepalm:
>
> Yes you are, I misread the get_maintainer.pl output ... somehow.
>
> > Please let me know how that does not capture the logistics of the watchdog
> > (or any other) maintainer model, and how to better reflect that I review
> > watchdog patches and Wim, as maintainer, sends them to Linus. I thought that
> > is what "R:" and "M:" is for ?
>
> Nope, it's right, I messed up.
>
> >
> > The only possibly unusual detail is that I maintain a branch with all patches
> > I have reviewed. This branch is picked up by Wim and either accepted as-is or,
> > if he does not agree with some patch, modified accordingly. This branch is
> > not in linux-next and thus not part of any official maintainer model,
> > but exists for convenience and to enable additional testing through 0day
> > and my own test farm.
> >
> > > Reviewed-by from a listed maintainer wouldn't be typical unless they expected
> > > someone else to merge it - in this case, I suppose Guenter meant Wim and not us
> > > :-)
> > >
> >
> > You are correct, "Reviewed-by:" typically is intended for Wim, as I thought
> > it would be expected for a designated reviewer. I tend to use "Acked-by:"
> > if I assume or expect that a patch will be picked up by a different maintainer,
> > though I typically add a note saying that this is the case (no idea if I did
> > that here). Is there some different set of tags I should use ?
>
> Nope, we just should have confirmed with Wim.
>
> > On a side note, it appears that I tagged "watchdog: iTCO_wdt: cleanup
> > set/unset no_reboot_bit functions" with "Reviewed-by:", not with "Acked-by:".
>
> I noticed this as well. If Wim drops these, we'll correct that in our branch.
It makes sence to keep the patches together. I will drop the patches from the watchdog tree.
Kind regards,
Wim.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-03 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-02 4:04 linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with the watchdog tree Stephen Rothwell
2017-05-02 18:09 ` Darren Hart
2017-05-02 19:12 ` Guenter Roeck
2017-05-02 20:21 ` Darren Hart
2017-05-02 20:57 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-05-02 21:30 ` Darren Hart
2017-05-02 21:58 ` Guenter Roeck
2017-05-02 22:35 ` Darren Hart
2017-05-03 14:24 ` Wim Van Sebroeck [this message]
2017-05-03 14:43 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-03-04 3:37 Stephen Rothwell
2019-03-07 5:27 ` Darren Hart
2019-03-07 5:42 ` Darren Hart
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170503142429.GA26229@spo001.leaseweb.nl \
--to=wim@iguana.be \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).