On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:21:39PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > 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? Sometimes, if we remember, we do, sometimes we don't :) -- 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
