On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 08:32:14AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:16:36AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:16:50PM -0500, Michael Welling wrote: > > >> Recently my patch was found to be a duplicated in the gpio > > >> tree during a manual merge with linux-next. > > >> > > >> The patch was similar but not identical and it was smoothed out by Stephen > > >> Rothwell. > > >> > > >> Though I did found a bit of redundant code in the Linux next version. > > >> > > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/28/197 > > >> > > >> I am willing to recreate the patch but I am wondering if I should > > >> model it after my original patch or after the merged version in > > >> linux-next. > > >> > > >> Suggestions? > > > > > > I'll defer to the gpio maintainer, he would know what's best to do here. > > > > First fix the code that has landed upstream to look like you > > want it, then submit a squashed combined version that looks > > like you want it. > > No, I don't like squashed patches, just send both of them backported > properly. I am a bit confused as to what happened in the merge of Linux next but it has multiple redundancies in the code. I will port a patch for 3.14-stable and then go fix the mess that was created in linux-next. > > thanks, > > greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html