On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:37 PM Sven Peter <sven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, at 16:24, hch@xxxxxx wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 07:39:49PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> The usual trick is to have a branch with the shared patches and have
> >> that pulled into every other tree that needs these, but make sure you never
> >> rebase. In this case, you could have something like
> >>
> >> a) rtkit driver in a shared branch (private only)
> >> b) thunderbolt driver based on branch a), merged through
> >> thunderbolt/usb/pci tree (I don't know who is responsible here)
> >> c) sart driver based on branch a), merged through soc tree
> >> d) nvme driver based on branch c), merged through nvme tree
> >>
> >> since the commit hashes are all identical, each patch only shows up in
> >> the git tree once, but you get a somewhat funny history.
> >
> > Given that the nvme driver is just addition of new code I'm perfectly
> > fine with sending it through whatever tree is most convenient.
>
> So If I understand all this correctly either
> 1) I send a pull request with rtkit+sart to Arnd/soc@ followed by
> a pull request with the same commits + the nvme driver to
> Christoph/nvme to make sure the commit hashes in both trees
> are the same.
> or
> 2) I send a pull request with rtkit+sart+nvme to soc@ and we
> take the entire driver through there with Christoph's ack
> if Arnd is fine with carrying it as well.
>
> In either case SMC (or thunderbolt if I finish in time) can also be based
> on the same rtkit commit and could go into 5.19 as well.
> I don't have any preference here (not that my opinion matters much
> for this decision anyway :-))
Correct, those are both ok.
Arnd
