On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 18:50:40 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Very unlikely, and any such conflict will be trivial. > > > > Agreed, mainly I don't understand why we'd make an exception > > and take the patchset via a special tree. > > It saves work for everyone? > > The patches are super-simple. If a maintainer chooses to merge one of > them, Stephen tells us and I drop the mm.git copy. It's all so easy. If it's just to save work - we're fine. Please don't apply the networking changes.
- References:
- [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- From: Easwar Hariharan
- Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- From: Jeff Johnson
- Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- From: Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- From: Jakub Kicinski
- Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- From: Andrew Morton
- [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- Next by Date: [PATCH v6 0/6] ASoC: fsl: add memory to memory function for ASRC
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()
- Index(es):