On 04.01.2022 09:02, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Heiner,
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 08:29:28 +0100 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> The patch in the pm tree annotating pm_runtime_resume_and_get() as __must_check
>> follows some fixes of pm_runtime_resume_and_get() usage that went through other
>> trees. These fixes are in linux-next but don't seem to be in the pm tree.
>> We talk about:
>> f04b4fb47d83 ("ASoC: sh: rz-ssi: Check return value of pm_runtime_resume_and_get()")
>
> In the sound-asoc tree.
>
>> 3d6b661330a7 ("crypto: stm32 - Revert broken pm_runtime_resume_and_get changes")
>
> In the crypto tree.
>
> Both those are merged into linux-next after the pm tree. If Linus did
> the same, the pm tree commit would break his build. The only way you
> can have that pm tree commit in linux-next is to ask Andrew Morton to
> put it in the post linux-next part of his patch series. Otherwise, it
> needs to be removed form the pm tree and wait until after the next
> merge window closes (or at least both the above trees have been merged
> by Linus).
>
Rafael,
can you take care of this?
To avoid such issues I think next time I'd route all dependent patches
through one tree and just get the ACK from the other involved maintainers.
Thank you, Heiner
