Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:17:24 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: ldp/staging/driver-core (Was: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 11) |
| |
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:05:20AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:55:27 -0700 Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:38:40PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Changes since next-20080610: > > > > > > Dropped trees (temporary): ldp (it is unfetchable - probably something to > > > do with the new Staging tree), block (it just has too many conflicts and > > > breaks the powerpc build). > > > > Yes, I've dropped "ldp" from my 'gregkh' set of patches/trees, they > > should be pulled in from the -staging tree, which would be great if you > > could add to the end of the -next tree. > > I was under the impression that the stuff in the ldp tree was for > inclusion in 2.6.27. If so, then that tree should still exist (for > inclusion in linux-next) or the drivers that were in the ldp tree should > be included in some other tree(s) that is (are) included in linux-next > (Staging is for stuff that isn't ready yet, right?).
Yes, but if there are only 1 or 2 patches that are ready to go upstream in -next, and you are pulling the whole -staging tree in, it doesn't make much sense to keep the two separate, so I just put them at the top of the staging tree.
> I will try to figure out what I think about Staging today.
Thanks.
> > I've also removed some of the larger patches in the driver-core tree > > that were causing you merge/build errors, they should be all resolved > > now. > > Thanks, but a better plan (which I hope you and Kay have considered) is > to break up the ones that only depeneded on dev_name and dev_set_name and > send the parts to the appropriate subsystems (since dev_name and > dev_set_name) are both in upstream now).
That's exactly what we are going to do. I removed them from my tree for now to prevent these kinds of merge errors.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |