Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] MMC/SDHCI fixes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 21 December 2015 at 14:59, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 21 December 2015 at 14:41, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 02:23:17PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 21 December 2015 at 13:51, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:35:36PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> >> I decided to try to apply it for my next branch, to get some good test
>>> >> coverage. Although, it failed when reaching patch 8. Would you mind
>>> >> posting yet another new re-based version, please.
>>> >
>>> > Given that these are _fixes_ and need to be applied to -rc kernels, they
>>> > are based on -rc6.  I don't see the point of rebasing them onto non-rc
>>> > kernels to test, because then you're not testing against where they
>>> > should be applied.
>>>
>>> I see your point, but I would rather not aim for rcs with these
>>> changes, unless you insist.
>>>
>>> Not because they aren't fixes, but because it's old errors. Instead we
>>> can "cc stable" or use the fixes tag as we are in quite late stage of
>>> the rc. This approach will also allow us to get a bit better test
>>> coverage.
>>
>> Even if we do this, we still need to get _these_ tested because _these_
>> will be the ones which need to be applied to stable trees such as the
>> 4.4 stable series.
>>
>> What I suggest is applying them against -rc6, and then merging them
>> into your -next branch, and fixing the resulting conflicts.  We then
>> have the patches ready for -rc, but which can still be tested in -next
>> (for what that's worth.)  If people find problems, they can always
>> re-test these patches without all the development stuff.
>>
>> If I were to give you a set of patches suitable just for -next, then
>> people can only test with all the development stuff included, and we'll
>> have no idea whether any new problems are the result of development or
>> these patches.
>
> Okay! I will publish the branch as soon as I can.

Huh. The merge ends up in a quite complicated conflict to resolve for
me. And I am running out of time.

I have queued a quite limited amount of sdhci patches for this cycle,
so indeed I think it's good opportunity to try out your changes right
now.

In particular, it's the following patch which I have queued for next
that conflicts with your changes.
"mmc: sdhci: 64-bit DMA actually has 4-byte alignment"

Could you perhaps reconsider to rebase your patches on top of my next
branch. I have also rebased my next branch on top of rc6.

Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux