[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tty: Remove leftover dependencies on PPC_OF
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 08:00:45AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Guenter Roeck <> wrote:
>> > On 04/16/2015 11:01 PM, Kevin Hao wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:20:59PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> powerpc qemu runs fail with the current upstream kernel.
>> >>> Bisect points to commit 52d996270032 ("powerpc: kill PPC_OF").
>> >>> Unfortunately, that commit did not remove all instances of PPC_OF.
>> >>> Practical impact is that the serial driver used by powerpc qemu
>> >>> targets is no longer built into the test kernel.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sorry for the break. This is a dependency issue. The patch 213dce3c17a6
>> >> ("tty: kconfig: remove the superfluous dependency on PPC_OF") has already
>> >> been merged into tty-next, but still not propagate to upstream yet. I
>> >> failed
>> >> to reminder Michael of this when the pulling request is sent to Linus.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Guess that explains why I don't see the breakage in linux-next.
>> >
>> > This kind of problem seems to be happening a lot in this commit window.
>> >
>> > Is there a new mechanism in place which requires splitting such series
>> > into multiple parts ? Personally I preferred the "old" style, where
>> > the entire series would have been handled by one maintainer, with Acks
>> > from the others.
>> The rules haven't changed. Maintainers are doing the wrong thing. If a
>> series is split up into multiple parts, then maintainers *must*
>> coordinate to put the prerequisites into a single branch that can be
>> merged into each branch handling it. However, it is still almost
>> always better to just merge the entire series via a single tree.
>> Make noise whenever you see this kind of breakage because it means a
>> maintainer has done the wrong thing.
> Well, the maintainer needs to be _told_ that the patch that is being
> sent to them shouldn't go through their tree and that it depends on
> other patches, so that they can properly just ack them.
> Which is what happened here, someone sent me a patch, and I applied it.
> Nothing broke that I could determine, and I never got a report of
> something breaking, so how am I, the maintainer, doing the wrong thing?

My apologies, Yes of course. s/a maintainer/someone/


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-17 11:01    [W:0.047 / U:3.984 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site