On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:59 -0700 Jason Gerecke <killertofu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... I suspect this will be likely to create merge conflicts, so submit it like that and I'll probably ask Wolfram to do an immutable branch that I can then pull into IIO. Hence we'll have exactly the same commits (IDs and all) in both IIO and I2C trees. Jonathan > > Jason
