From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752014AbcFVIvK (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 04:51:10 -0400 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:38616 "EHLO pandora.armlinux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751538AbcFVIvI (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 04:51:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:43:36 +0100 From: Russell King To: Stephen Rothwell , intel-gfx , dri-devel , linux-next , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Benjamin Gaignard Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-misc tree with the arm tree Message-ID: <20160622084336.GN22276@flint.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20160622114704.5b0c97eb@canb.auug.org.au> <20160622082110.GM22276@flint.armlinux.org.uk> <20160622082336.GN23520@phenom.ffwll.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160622082336.GN23520@phenom.ffwll.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 10:23:36AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:21:11AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:31:18AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm-misc tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/sti/sti_drv.c > > > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > > > 062993b15e8e ("drm: convert DT component matching to component_match_add_release()") > > > > > > Why did that one end up in the arm tree? Should it go in through > > > drm-misc instead? > > > > Mine is part of a three part patch series which is part of the component > > helper updates (which I'm the author and maintainer of). > > > > Then someone came up with an alternative way of some of part of it. > > > > You can't merge the above DRM part, because that means you also need to > > merge patch 1, which is core component stuff. > > Makes sense, but generally in that case I ask Dave for an explicit ack for > merging through another tree to avoid confusion. Lack of that is why I > asked. It got posted to the appropriate mailing lists with CCs, including David. Just three people responded. One of the responses was that people didn't like the duplication. I posted v2 the same day, the DT people didn't like the file location, so I went back to v1. That then sparked someone to start working _against_ me, cleaning up the existing duplication, and acknowledging that it'll cause _me_ problems. So, as it was done maliciously and intentionally to give these porblems, I'm not budging on this. Sorry. There are times when working on the kernel is not very nice. This is one of them. -- Russell King ARM architecture Linux Kernel maintainer