On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:57:25AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Daniel Lezcano
>> <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Things that could go wrong include:
>>
>> - A platform maintainer wants to add a new platform and has a for-next
>> branch that gets merged into linux-next, with parts of it going through
>> different maintainers, and now they have to choose between a branch
>> that doesn't build without the timer branch, or one that break for-next
>> unless Stephen applies a fixup
>>
>> - Some architecture maintainer didn't get the memo and adds an instance of
>> CLOCKSOUCE_OF_DECLARE in architecture specific code without asking
>> having the patch reviewed first
>>
>> - A platform has a branch with complex cross-tree dependencies and
>> it need to get merged in an unconventional way.
>>
>> - You make a mistake and accidentally merge one driver for an unusual
>> architecture that escapes your test matrix.
>>
>> While those all are unlikely to happen in a particular merge window, they do
>> happen occasionally and tend to cause a lot of pain.
>
> Hmm, that sounds scary :)
>
> There is no guarantee, when removing the alias, none of the above happens,
> right?
No, it's just both less likely and easier to work around.
> If the timer branch is in linux-next, that could be caugth before any of the
> above happens, no?
linux-next will find most of these problems, but it will still be more work
for the people that run into build failures when testing linux-next.
Arnd
