[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/29] gma500: Ensure the frame buffer has a linear virtual mapping
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I am still wondering how come that this is causing trouble to anyone
> > though -- is anyone really developing real code on top of linux-next
> > (which should be there to cross-check merge problems between subsystems
> > and test functionality) instead of particular subsystem tree?
> I run -next on a regular basis. I'm actually doing a lot of Linux mid
> development on it because I need bits going via various trees from x86 to
> staging to input together.

Yes, cross-tree development is definitely a mode in which I can imagine
linux-next could be used as a base for actual code development (and
probably the only one which is justifiable).

> I'm not btw saying your approach is wrong - in fact I imagine its the
> only way to make it managable for some things but in the gma500 case at
> least and I suspect much of staging it tends to cause merge problems. It
> would be helpful if you route any gma500 bits via me because of the
> amount of change in that subtree.

Yeah, thanks.

As said already -- normally I don't accept staging bits at all (for a
reason), that was a mistake. Sorry for that.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I can either drop the gma500 bits I have queued now (and stop applying
> > anything touching it, hard rule), or you rebasing on top of Greg's staging
> > tree instead of linux-next (and I sorting out the merge conflict later).
> If you can drop the gma500 bits and send them my way I'll merge them via
> the gma500 pile.

Sure. I have already pushed out a tree with those reverted and will be
sending you the patches separately in a second.

Jiri Kosina

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-29 00:57    [W:0.045 / U:2.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site