On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 1:06:40 PM CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 12:38:02 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote: > > That's a bug then. The patch should be rejected. You're not allowed to > > break the code. > > Sorry Dan, I disagree. It's not a bug. No one intend to break the code. > How could anyone know that someone else is working simultaneously on > some code that is not compatible with the work of the other developer? > > Pavel and I worked simultaneously on code based on the current Greg's tree. > > We incidentally got to know that mine breaks his. > > I suppose that Greg will take Pavel's work first, because it was submitted few > hours before mine and then will ask me to take into account Pavel's patches, > rebase, fix and resend mine. > > Each series is self contained and does not introduce bugs to the current tree. > The bugs will arise when Greg will have applied one of the two series as usually > in a FIFO order. > > There's no practical means to know who is working to what just by reading all > the messages of the lists. Who reads all the messages before deciding to work > on something? This issue will be solved a way or the other, I really don't think it > is a big problem, it's unavoidable when a lot of people work on the same > driver or subsystem. > > Regards, > > Fabio For sake of completeness I want to say that when Pavel had only submitted RFC v2 my code didn't break his. It was only with his v3 that the bug went out. But v3 was submitted just few hours before mine. Fabio
