On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > > > Ok, so let's put it in the common place. I'll take this patch through > > > > > LED tree if you resubmit it. You still may want to use local defines > > > > > so you can apply the other patches without waiting. > > > > > > > > Pavel, why complicate it so much? Given how trivial the patch is, the > > > > easiest way is what's usually done in such cases (where substantial patch > > > > depends on a tiny trivial change elsewhere) -- take it through HID tree > > > > with your Reviewed-by / Acked-by:. > > > > > > > > Do you see any issue with that? > > > > > > Pavel, another week has passed. I am considering just including the > > > trivial LED #define additions and take them through hid.git unless I hear > > > from you today. > > > > I'd prefer not to deal with rejects / common immutable branches / etc. > > I am not proposing common immutable branch; and if there are going to be > trivial cotext conflicts because of that, those will be sorted out by > Linus without you even noticing. > > > You don't _need_ the defines at all > > As I've already pointed to you in several threads, we have quite a lot of > code queued that does depend on the defines. > > > and you don't need them in the common place. > > I compltely fail to see the point of having them teporarily local before > you manage to finally do something about the trivial addition to proper > shared header. > > > Just merge the patch without the defines. I'll merge the defines. That > > seems like least complex solution to me. > > That would cause my tree not to build. In other words: could you please elaborate what exact issue are you trying to avoid by not providing your Acked-by: and letting it go through hid.git with all the rest of the code depending on it? -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
