On 09/27/2011 01:36 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 07:50:51PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> On 09/24/2011 12:04 AM, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:21:20PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>> But if there are more trees depending on the tree, then OK, I will live >>>> with that ;). >>> >>> For the tty tree, I really doubt it, but I am not sure (rumor has it >>> that some people are basing on it, but that might just be rumor.) >> >> Ok, for the other uart patches I have, it would be convenient for me to >> have the possibility of rebase. Would you mind if I add something like >> uart-cleanup tree to the -next tree and will have the patches there >> until I send them to you? > > linux-next is for stuff that people are confident will show up in the > next release, not for general "let's throw it out there to see if it > works" type thing. No, it's not definitely a stuff like that. It's all tested and working with my testbed. It just may need some tuning for some specific hardware or cases. Especially I have no possibility to test drivers for architectures other than x86. I only (cross-)compile-test them. >> Just for the purpose of fine tuning (and rebasing) if something needs to >> be fixed in them. The code is so complex, that I'm afraid I omitted some >> semi-hidden dependency. And it would be great to fix patches like when I >> used to work with the -mm tree. > > Perhaps you should just work with Andrew and put these in -mm for now > until you feel comfortable that it's all worked out and no rebasing > would be needed anymore? Yes, I can try that as I'm not sure Andrew will agree. Let's see. And also note that -mm is a part of -next already. That's why I was thinking about a separate tree. thanks, -- js -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
