On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 01:19:35PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > From: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx> > > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:26:54 +0200 > > > >> Is waiting for 3.6-rc1 the best alternative, or is cherry-picking them > >> an option? > > > > I'm extremely reluctant to have a dependency on another tree. > > > > The USB tree, on the other hand, could pull the net-next tree > > in so you can continue your dependent work there. > > Hello Greg, > > I know I said I would be more careful about cross-tree dependencies, but > here I am again... > > The context is: How should I proceed with interface number based probing > for usbnet drivers, in particular qmi_wwan which already has a few > patches in net-next? > > I see two possible remaining options: > > 1) you pull the net-next changes into usb-next so that I can do the > work against usb-next now, or > 2) I wait for 3.6-rc1 and do the work against the net tree after > 3.6-rc1 is merged there > > I have decided to go for option #2 unless either of you have other > preferences, as I believe that is going to cause the least work and > merge trouble for you both. What about: 3) You send the usb interface number matching patches again for them to be included in the net-next tree as well, causing duplicates to be in linux-next, but allowing you to send your patches into net-next. That is what we have done at times for other patches, and if David is ok with it, so am I. Odds are, the merge will happen automatically, but if not, I can handle it when 3.6-rc1 comes around. Sound good? 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
