On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 03:16:29PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:02:25PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:37:27PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > Yes, I'll do that as part of my normal tree submission process. > > > Actually, ensuring correct merge order won't be enough, will it? That > > doesn't magically fixes that the function's signature actually changed. > > > Shouldn't the update of the sysfs_get_dirent() call be fixed within the > > same patch that updates the sysfs_get_dirent() signature? > > They're applied in different trees so they're both OK by themselves, > it's the merge that brings the two together that needs to do the fixup. Right, as long as the person doing that merge remembers to do that. It sounds like the thing that could easily be forgotten. But Linus has been doing this for a long time, so I'm sure he'll know what to look for. I'm curious though, are maintainers supposed to mention it when sending pull requests with such a dependency? Thierry
Attachment:
pgpjM5icwsE8a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
