On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:57:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Darren Hart <dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:12:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > >> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > From my perspective, the most direct solution would be to drop these two patches > > from the watchdog tree and let them go through the platform driver x86 tree with > > Guenter's Acked-by. If you have additional patches which depend on these two, > > then if you will provide an immutable branch we can merge, we can do that too > > (but I try to keep the number of external merges to a minimum - which is > > becoming increasingly difficult lately for some reason). > > Sorry for not being in doubt, I just decided that Ack from Guenter > means that default case is to go through PDx86 tree without any > additional agreement. I assumed that was the case, yes. I read through the thread and would have thought the same. As Guenter is directing us to Wim, I think the MAINTAINERS file doesn't really capture the logistics of the watchdog maintainer model, as a Reviewed-by from a listed maintainer wouldn't be typical unless they expected someone else to merge it - in this case, I suppose Guenter meant Wim and not us :-) -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center -- 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
