On 2017-02-10 13:52, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi Peter, > >> initializer for the 'handled' variable. I amended the previously >> posted fixup and was just about to send you the pull request when >> you started to add patches to i2c/for-next. > > Oh, sorry! I wasn't sure if we agreed that you send pull-requests for > v4.11 already or starting with v4.12. And since there seems to be no rc8 > for 4.11 I decided to start pulling in. FWIW, I think you did the right thing, and it was me that should have been clearer from the start. No big thing, just a few patches. > Build testing plus sparse+smatch testing for the patches when I apply > them to my tree and then having my branches additionally checked by > build bot works well for me. I will happily share my super-simple > 'ninja-check' script with you which runs various code checkers when > compiling. It is basically adding "W=1 C=1 CHECK='ninja-check'" to the > kernel build command-line. > > I hope you are open for this workflow. But we can discuss, of course. No trouble at all, and I'll certainly have a look at the script, so please send it my way. Thanks! >> The question then becomes at approximately which point you'll need >> a pull request? Or should you perhaps be pulling in my tree >> on a more continuous level so that everything i2c-related is >> available in one tree (i.e. your tree)? > > I prefer pull requests a little bit. Then, I get a consistent state > approved by you and already checked by build bot. BTW is your tree in > linux-next as well? Nope, it's not, but I intend to fix that for the next round. Ok, I think we have a sane plan, people should be testing linux-next anyway... Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
