On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 04:02:56PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > Thomas, > > In order to get some testing in -next, I've *tentatively* applied this > series in the following way: > > +---+ mvebu/msi_common (1,2,3,10) > | > +---+---+ mvebu/msi_irq (4-9) > | > +---+---+ mvebu/msi_mvebu (11-13) > > I had to make one change to patch #9, I protected the last two blocks > with #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI to prevent a build failure at that point. > > mvebu/msi_common should be appropriate for Thierry to base off, however, > I make no guarantees about the stability of the branch until I send a > PR for it. Code-wise, it should be fine, but the commit-ids may change > due to adding Tested-by's, etc. I noticed that patch 10 has my Reviewed-by, even though my comments weren't addressed. They were about stylistic issues but I'd still like to see them fixed now rather than having to fix them up later. Also I think I gave my Tested-by on those patches somewhere already and I think it's unlikely that anybody else will test them, so with the consistency style fixes applied I don't see any reason why that branch can't be stabilized right away. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpXB32gKB7zG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
