* Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think I fixed it all up (see below). I can carry this fix (or a > > better one) as necessary. > > Can you please drop lost-spurious-irq for now? It needs to be > reimplemented. I'll send a merge request again when it's ready. Please send irq merge requests to Thomas instead and wait for those genirq bits to show up upstream. (You did so in the past and the review process was ongoing AFAICS) Otherwise we would be dilluting linux-next testing with random side effects from a tree that wasnt yet (in that form) scheduled to go upstream by its respective maintainer at that time. We were lucky that this showed up as merge complications - what if instead it merged 'fine' on the textual and build/boot level but mis-merged on the functional level in subtle ways? Thomas would be sending something to Linus that was never really tested in linux-next in that form, caused problems upstream, and Linus would be rightfully upset about the situation. Stephen, you need to enforce such things ... Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
