On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is > > > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both > > > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next" > > > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO > > > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously? > > > > It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to > > best address this tangle... > > The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error. > I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new > version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO. > > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko Thanks! Since the patch would touch both IIO and I2C I assume I would submit it to both mailinglists. And that whichever maintainer gets to it first would just give their Reviewed-by (if all looks good) and the second applies the Signed-off-by and handles the merge? I'll work on the updated combined patch... Jason
