On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:35:11PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:04:45PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 07:55:23PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:32:36PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > > > Applied to irqchip/urgent with Nico's Ack. > > > > > > > > > > Interesting, so I'm discussing this patch, and it gets applied anyway... > > > > > yes, that's great. > > > > > > > > Quoting Nico: > > > > > > > > "Of course it would be good to clarify things wrt Russell's remark > > > > independently from this patch." > > > > > > > > I took 'independently' to mean "This patch is ok, *and* we need to > > > > address Russell's concerns in a follow-up patch." > > > > > > > > Nico's Reviewed-by with that comment was sent August 13th. The most > > > > recent activity on this thread was also August 13th. After four days, I > > > > reasoned there were no objections to his comment. > > > > > > Well... I mentioned this patch is a nice cleanup independently of the > > > reason why it was created in the first place. > > > > Ah, fair enough. > > > > > Maybe that shouldn't be sorted as "urgent" in that case, especially > > > when the code having problem with the current state of things is > > > living out of mainline. > > > > hmmm, yes. I've been grappling with the semantics of '/urgent' vice > > '/fixes'. With mvebu, /fixes is the branch for all changes needing to go > > into the current -rcX cycle. For irqchip, Thomas suggested /urgent for > > the equivalent branch. To me, they serve the same purpose. > > Unfortunately, I occasionally hear "Well, it's not _urgent_ ...". I > > suppose I'll put up with it for one more cycle and then change it to > > /fixes. :) > > > > wrt this patch, I need to drop it anyway. I was a bit rusty (it's been > > a few weeks) and forgot to add the Cc -stable and Fixes: tags. I do > > agree, though, it's certainly not urgent. > > Given the raised issue has to do with out-of-tree code, there is no need > to CC stable in that case anyway. I could go either way here. On the one hand, a fix is a fix is a fix. On the other, if it can't be triggered in mainline, we shouldn't accept it at all. Stephen, is the out of tree code that triggered this bound for mainline? thx, Jason. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
