On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:27:53PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 10:01:43AM -0600, Bin Liu wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 04:38:47PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:15:05AM -0600, Bin Liu wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > These are musb fixes for v4.10-rc3, which fix the bugs in musb core and > > > > some glue layers for some use cases, such as bogus interrupts while musb > > > > in heavy load, WARINING while rmmod omap2430 glue, and a few fixes in PM, > > > > and cleanup as while. > > > > > > > > Please let me know if any change is needed. > > > > > > Yeah, all of them need to be changed, come on, this was horrible, would > > > you take this type of patch series for 4.10-rc3? Why make me reject > > > them? > > > > Sorry, I know some patches in this set generally don't belong to -rc3+, > > I should have sent them for v4.10-rc2 (this set was already ready even > > before v4.10-rc1 came out), but due the holidays, I was offline last > > week, and thought at this time v4.10-rc3 might be still considered as > > -rc2 due to the slowness of the holidays. So I sent the set now. > > Why would they be ok for -rc2? There should not be any difference for > -rc2 vs. any later rc. I read somewhere last year when I started maintaining musb that -rc2 can be an extension of -rc1. But anyway I will ensure to only send regression fixes to -rc2+ from now on. But please clarify if some fixes such as 01/16 in this set can go into -rc2+ or not? It is not a regression of -rc1 but a major fix. In other words, if -rc2+ _only_ takes regression fixes for current -rc1? Thanks, -Bin. > > thanks, > > greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
