On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 08:29:24PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 03:08:00PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > * Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> [091008 15:20]: > >> > >> <snip/> > >> > >> >> > Here you can see Uwe Kleine-K??nig sending the original patch without > >> >> > even CC'ing the mmc list: > >> >> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124820861213849&w=2 > >> >> > > >> >> > And it was unintentionally broken by this one: > >> >> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=125249763422227&w=2 > >> >> > >> >> Er, actually that one was ok, the problem was introduced only in the > >> >> final version: > >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=125366315417006&w=2 > >> > > >> > Right, looks like Roger forgot to Cc linux-mmc. > >> > > >> >> > I don't see what we are waiting for, the code is clearly broken, even > >> >> > the compiler warns that nobody is using omap_hsmmc_probe(). > >> > > >> > I've sent Roger's patch to Andrew & linux-mmc so hopefully it will get > >> > merged soon: > >> > > >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg00539.html > >> > >> I don't see what's specific about mmc in that patch, nor omap. It's > >> just a fix for an obvious mistake that must be picked ASAP and can't > >> possibly be NAK'ed. > >> > >> There's a tree for trivial fixes: > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/trivial > >> > >> And one for includecheck: > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaswinder/linux-2.6 > >> > >> What's the procedure for obvious fixes? I'm CC'ing Greg KH and Andrew > >> Morton because I think they might interested in fixing these kinds of > >> issues quickly in the future. > > > > What kind of issues? Why would I be interested, where is the problem? > > The obvious-brain-dead-duh kind of issues, like this one. > > The problem is that OMAP devices (like beagleboard) are not booting > correctly right now because of a wrong merge. It has been identified, > tested, and acked, but nobody has picked it up for a pull request, so > it's not clear it will be on -rc4. Has the patches been sent from the maintainer to Linus? Who is the maintainer? Who normally sends this stuff? > To me it's not clear who should push the patch, it seems it doesn't > belong on linux-omap, so Tony is pushing it through linux-mmc, which I > don't think is the right place. They should be handling mmc-related > issues, not obvious breakage. Well, mmc related breakage is fine to handle :) > In order to keep the engines oiled I think there must be a process to > flag obvious generic breakage so it's immediately picked; maybe an > 'obvious-fixes' tree, or a 'simple-fixes' that has 'trivial', > 'includecheck', and similar, or maybe nothing needs to be done. Up to > you to decide. Andrew usually sends stuff like this at times. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
