On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:15:35PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:32:29 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Em Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:04:39 +0200 > > Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > > > > > OK, so that means I should send my pull request after yours in the next > > > > > merge window? To avoid the build breakage? > > > > > > > > Either that or you can apply my patch on your tree before the > > > > patch that caused the breakage. > > > > > > > > Just let me know what works best for you. > > > > > > Hmm, the offending patch is already in -next and I don't rebase my tree. > > > So, I guess it's the merge window dependency then. > > > > > Ok, I'll merge it through my tree then. > > It should go into the i2c tree (since that is where the *warning* was > introduced). It is only a warning and there won't be many patches > between the patch that introduced the warning and this one that fixes > it. This patch could then have a Fixes tag that makes sense i.e. it > will reference a previous commit. I can apply the patch to my i2c/for-next branch, but not to my i2c/for-5.3 branch (which I merge into i2c/for-next). This way, the warning will go away, but the media patch still goes to Linus via the media tree. Is that suitable for you?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
