On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 01:13:54PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote: > On 8/25/21 1:06 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:55:37PM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote: > > > The main problem, that no one knows who is the "old". Greg can take patches > > > in any order he wants > > > > Patches are always taken in first come first serve. > > > > > Ok, but if pending patch needs new version, then it will be taken at the > end? Versions don't matter. No one is tracking any of that. A patch arrives. It is either applied or rejected. First come first serve. > > Here is the situation we have: > > I have the patch series based on old function behavior, it was > posted first > > Then Fabio posted refactoring of the function and it changes > return values. > > > Both series are pending right now and made on top of staging-next branch. > Who needs to rebase? I think, applying these series as-is can broke the > driver, since error handling will be broken That's a bug then. The patch should be rejected. You're not allowed to break the code. Also don't write patches which lead to merge order breaking the code silently. That makes it difficult for stable as well. For example, don't do this: -void frob(int a, int b); +void frob(int b, int a); In that case, you would change the name of the function so that the build would break when people mix old and new code. regards, dan carpenter
