Hi, On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 08:01:26AM +0900, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:28:18PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:20:33PM +0900, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:50:33PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > A few more fixes for 3.2. Compile tested with allmodconfig and allyesconfig and > > > > also boot-tested on my x86 desktop with my DWC3 FPGA card. > > > > > > > > All patches have been pending on the mailing list for quite a while and they > > > > should all be fine by now. > > > > > > > > The following changes since commit 118205d6b6752e22e19b771771174e6426582311: > > > > > > > > USB: linux-cdc-acm.inf: add support for the acm_ms gadget (2011-11-29 09:59:29 +0900) > > > > > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > ra.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/balbi/usb.git for-greg > > > > > > Ick, what's with the "merge" commit at the end of this tree? Not good > > > at all, that wasn't needed, and only makes things messier. > > > > > > So, I just converted this branch into patches, and applied them, please > > > rebase your tree now, and don't do that again. > > > > I just hope we wouldn't have to keep on rebasing branches, it makes > > things a lot more difficult for me because everytime I have to re-create > > my master branch and my own history looks messy. > > <snip> > > I understand this, so don't send me branches that are "messy". > > Linus will complain if you have unneeded merges, and your branch had a > totally unneeded, and not really documented at all, merge at the end of > it to my tree. I wouldn't say it's unneded, it was the commit which brought our histories together. Undocumented maybe, but then again, what's there to document after all? > That is why I complained and converted your tree to patches instead. > > Yes, I want tested patches, and ones that have been applied for a while. > If you want to do a merge on your own to see if there are going to be > conflicts, wonderful, but don't push that merge to me to pull. > > If there are conflicts, then great, I'd like that merge to be there, or > at least tell me about it so that I can resolve it properly myself. > > This is exactly the same rules that Linus makes all the subsystem > maintainers follow, it shouldn't be new at all. Fair enough, then how do you want me to send you pull requests for merge windows ? Considering I have several branches to merge (musb, dwc3, gadget, transceiver) either I send you one pull request for each branch or you will need to see merge commits from myself. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
