On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:08:12PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote: > On 21 Feb 2023, Luis Chamberlain stated: > > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:53:29PM +0000, Nick Alcock wrote: > >> [most people trimmed from the Cc: list for this procedural question] > >> > >> On 9 Feb 2023, Nick Alcock outgrape: > >> > I am going to split this whole series into: > >> > > >> > 1. A series of patches (123 of them at present) Cc:ed to subsystem > >> > maintainers as well as you, to comment out the MODULE_LICENSE usage. > >> > These patches will have Suggested-by you. This series is rebased against > >> > the latest modules-next and revalidated, and is ready to be mailed out; > >> > will do so shortly. > >> > >> One quick question: if/when you're happy with this series, are you > >> planning to take it yourself via modules-next? > > > > It seems some maintainers are already taking patches in, so let's see > > what folks take in, then if there are not takers I can just take what is > > not merged on linux-next through modules-next. > > > > So try to get them into each subsystem tree, and around rc3 send the > > ones that are not merged and I'll just take them into modules-next. > > Sounds good! I can trivially regenerate a new patch series containing > only the still-missing bits without needing to do anything like track > who took things, because nearly all of this is automated anyway. Fantastic. > ... at least I can if I can figure out where all the subsystem trees > that people took them into are (not everyone might mention when they > take one). This is why I use linux-next. It represents all the latest trees merged. > I might miss a few, but I suspect that's not a problem: > taking the same commit by two different routes does not constitute a > conflict, at least on its own. Right. Luis
