On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 03:55:22PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:20:52AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 08-05-19 10:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:48 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 07-05-19 22:17, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > Quoting Hans de Goede (2019-05-06 08:05:42) > > > > > > > > I guess this is urgent? > > > > > > > > Somewhat, getting this into e.g. rc2 would be fine too, waiting till 5.3 > > > > would be bad. > > > > > > So, I can do it as a fixes for rc2, just ping me after merge window. > > > > Ok, will do. > > Andy, what is the issue here? If the dependency is in v5.1 we can do a "merge > --ff-only v5.1" in our for-next branch in order to pull it in, that would be the > same as an immutable branch basically. > A simpler solution for this case would be to issue two PRs to Linus from two different branches. Other subsystems send topic branches, so this isn't out of the ordinary. I have merged the two patches in question from Hans and Steffen to for-next-2. We could send two PRs back to back, with a note to Linus why this is a bit different than usual, and then come back together in our for-next and fixes branches once both are merged and continue as usual. Any concerns with this approach? -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
