On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > >
> > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > it.
> > >
> > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > >
> > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> >
> > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
>
> My fault.
>
> > But yes, please revert it.
>
> Will go do so now.
Thank you.
> > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
>
> I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
"For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>"
REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YQ0fYe531yCyP4pf@xxxxxxxxxx/
The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
better way to convey this information such that it survives through
various submission iterations.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
