On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:45:05PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:50:15PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:23:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > BTW the issue here is that you sent this without comment in the middle > > of a series of fixes the other two of which *do* apply to mainline, > > ideally it would have just been sent separately since it needs to go > > separately but if you *are* going to send a single series like this > > things that are -next only should go after any fixes that are for > > mainline. > I expected that adding Fixes lines is enough documentation but I agree > that in retrospect it would have been a good idea to mention the > expected target branch for each patch. I'm willing to take half of the The Fixes would have done the right thing if the ordering was what I expected or if it had been sent separately - basically I wasn't expecting to find -next material after a mainline fix in the series so I'll not check back further in the series. > blame you assigned me as in retrospect double checking the Fixes lines > or doing a compile test of the ppc4xx driver would also have been a good > idea for you as maintainer applying the patches. Sorry for my I have a standard set of checks I do but as you pointed out the driver doesn't even build with a PowerPC defconfig, let alone cross architecture - at some point it gets to be the same situation as with if drivers for hardware I don't have works. The coverage in CI systems is generally good enough for long tail configs like this, but AFAICT even 0day didn't notice here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
