Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Jassi Brar]

Hi Stephen,

 The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
list.

  Could you please add it to linux-next?
Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>

Thanks,
-Jassi

-- 
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro
http://facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106  -
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 980 bytes --]

Hi Jassi,

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>  The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
> one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
> 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
> list.
> 
>   Could you please add it to linux-next?
> Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
> Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
> Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>

This is really late for v3.17.  The purpose of linux-next is to
discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus'
tree and to do some cross architecture build checking.  Adding a tree
during the merge window is not very helpful to that.

However if this is really going to be merged by Linus before v3.17-rc1,
I will add it on Monday, OK?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:29:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jassi,
> 
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >  The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
> > one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
> > 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
> > list.
> > 
> >   Could you please add it to linux-next?
> > Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
> > Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
> > Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
> 
> This is really late for v3.17.  The purpose of linux-next is to
> discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus'
> tree and to do some cross architecture build checking.  Adding a tree
> during the merge window is not very helpful to that.

+1.

The same goes for any tree which is part of linux-next.

Having a tree in linux-next carries with it the responsibility that the
tree owner abides by the kernel development cycle, which includes
respecting the moratorium on merging new development into branch(es)
which are part of linux-next during an actively open merge window.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Jassi Brar]

On 8 August 2014 16:00, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:29:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Jassi,
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >  The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
>> > one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
>> > 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
>> > list.
>> >
>> >   Could you please add it to linux-next?
>> > Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
>> > Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
>> > Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
>>
>> This is really late for v3.17.  The purpose of linux-next is to
>> discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus'
>> tree and to do some cross architecture build checking.  Adding a tree
>> during the merge window is not very helpful to that.
>
> +1.
>
> The same goes for any tree which is part of linux-next.
>
> Having a tree in linux-next carries with it the responsibility that the
> tree owner abides by the kernel development cycle, which includes
> respecting the moratorium on merging new development into branch(es)
> which are part of linux-next during an actively open merge window.
>
I wasn't aware that any new subsystem must live at least one cycle in
linux-next, I submitted it for inclusion just because someone
suggested that as the next best thing to merging this cycle.

Thanks
-Jassi

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 08:03:01PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 8 August 2014 16:00, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:29:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Jassi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >  The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
> >> > one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
> >> > 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
> >> > list.
> >> >
> >> >   Could you please add it to linux-next?
> >> > Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
> >> > Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
> >> > Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> This is really late for v3.17.  The purpose of linux-next is to
> >> discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus'
> >> tree and to do some cross architecture build checking.  Adding a tree
> >> during the merge window is not very helpful to that.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > The same goes for any tree which is part of linux-next.
> >
> > Having a tree in linux-next carries with it the responsibility that the
> > tree owner abides by the kernel development cycle, which includes
> > respecting the moratorium on merging new development into branch(es)
> > which are part of linux-next during an actively open merge window.
> >
> I wasn't aware that any new subsystem must live at least one cycle in
> linux-next, I submitted it for inclusion just because someone
> suggested that as the next best thing to merging this cycle.

Not "one cycle" but the general rule is that changes must be queued in
linux-next at the latest one week before the merge window opens.

What is a definite no-no is introducing new development which haven't
been seen in linux-next during an open merge window.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Jassi Brar]

On 8 August 2014 09:59, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Jassi,
>
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>  The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
>> one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
>> 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
>> list.
>>
>>   Could you please add it to linux-next?
>> Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
>> Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
>> Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
>
> This is really late for v3.17.  The purpose of linux-next is to
> discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus'
> tree and to do some cross architecture build checking.  Adding a tree
> during the merge window is not very helpful to that.
>
> However if this is really going to be merged by Linus before v3.17-rc1,
> I will add it on Monday, OK?
>
The patchset was deemed ready enough for this merge window. However
some late nitpicks and bikeshedding discussions ate time and my
confidence to send a pull request to Linus. Upon Mark's suggestion
(and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset to live the cycle in
linux-next.
 Sorry, I messed up by calling it for-3.17. It should have been for-3.18.

Regards,
-Jassi

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:55:52PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 8 August 2014 09:59, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Hi Jassi,
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>  The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
> >> one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
> >> 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
> >> list.
> >>
> >>   Could you please add it to linux-next?
> >> Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
> >> Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
> >> Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
> >
> > This is really late for v3.17.  The purpose of linux-next is to
> > discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus'
> > tree and to do some cross architecture build checking.  Adding a tree
> > during the merge window is not very helpful to that.
> >
> > However if this is really going to be merged by Linus before v3.17-rc1,
> > I will add it on Monday, OK?
> >
> The patchset was deemed ready enough for this merge window. However
> some late nitpicks and bikeshedding discussions ate time and my
> confidence to send a pull request to Linus.

If it wasn't in linux-next before the merge window, you shouldn't be
thinking about sending it to Linus.  Your changes may cause conflicts
with other trees, which would be unknown - and to push it in during
a merge window without it having been visible to others is quite
unacceptable.

As Stephen says, linux-next is there to find interactions between
trees before the code hits during the merge window - so that people
know what conflicts are likely, and what the resolutions to the
conflicts should be.  If your tree is not part of linux-next, then
it's an unknown as far as everyone else is concerned.

> Upon Mark's suggestion (and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset
> to live the cycle in linux-next.

Yes, that's the right thing to do, but you sent the request at an
inappropriate time.  The correct time to send your request would be
after 3.17-rc1 has been released, IOW after the current merge window
is over.

In general, kernel developers don't "remember" requests from one week
to the next; instead, we much prefer people send their requests at the
appropriate times in the development cycle.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Jassi Brar]

On 8 August 2014 20:11, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:55:52PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On 8 August 2014 09:59, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> > Hi Jassi,
>> >
>> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
>> >> one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
>> >> 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
>> >> list.
>> >>
>> >>   Could you please add it to linux-next?
>> >> Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
>> >> Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
>> >> Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
>> >
>> > This is really late for v3.17.  The purpose of linux-next is to
>> > discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus'
>> > tree and to do some cross architecture build checking.  Adding a tree
>> > during the merge window is not very helpful to that.
>> >
>> > However if this is really going to be merged by Linus before v3.17-rc1,
>> > I will add it on Monday, OK?
>> >
>> The patchset was deemed ready enough for this merge window. However
>> some late nitpicks and bikeshedding discussions ate time and my
>> confidence to send a pull request to Linus.
>
> If it wasn't in linux-next before the merge window, you shouldn't be
> thinking about sending it to Linus.  Your changes may cause conflicts
> with other trees, which would be unknown - and to push it in during
> a merge window without it having been visible to others is quite
> unacceptable.
>
> As Stephen says, linux-next is there to find interactions between
> trees before the code hits during the merge window - so that people
> know what conflicts are likely, and what the resolutions to the
> conflicts should be.  If your tree is not part of linux-next, then
> it's an unknown as far as everyone else is concerned.
>
>> Upon Mark's suggestion (and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset
>> to live the cycle in linux-next.
>
> Yes, that's the right thing to do, but you sent the request at an
> inappropriate time.  The correct time to send your request would be
> after 3.17-rc1 has been released, IOW after the current merge window
> is over.
>
> In general, kernel developers don't "remember" requests from one week
> to the next; instead, we much prefer people send their requests at the
> appropriate times in the development cycle.
>
OK, thanks for explaining.
-jassi

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 988 bytes --]

Hi Jassi,

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:40:47 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 8 August 2014 20:11, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >> Upon Mark's suggestion (and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset
> >> to live the cycle in linux-next.
> >
> > Yes, that's the right thing to do, but you sent the request at an
> > inappropriate time.  The correct time to send your request would be
> > after 3.17-rc1 has been released, IOW after the current merge window
> > is over.
> >
> > In general, kernel developers don't "remember" requests from one week
> > to the next; instead, we much prefer people send their requests at the
> > appropriate times in the development cycle.
> >
> OK, thanks for explaining.

As Russell has said, if you remind me after -rc1 is out, I will add
your tree then.  I will try to remember, but don't depend on it.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Jassi Brar]

On 8 August 2014 21:28, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Jassi,
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:40:47 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8 August 2014 20:11, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> Upon Mark's suggestion (and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset
>> >> to live the cycle in linux-next.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's the right thing to do, but you sent the request at an
>> > inappropriate time.  The correct time to send your request would be
>> > after 3.17-rc1 has been released, IOW after the current merge window
>> > is over.
>> >
>> > In general, kernel developers don't "remember" requests from one week
>> > to the next; instead, we much prefer people send their requests at the
>> > appropriate times in the development cycle.
>> >
>> OK, thanks for explaining.
>
> As Russell has said, if you remind me after -rc1 is out, I will add
> your tree then.  I will try to remember, but don't depend on it.
>
Please don't bother. I will remind you then.

Thanks
Jassi

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Jassi Brar]

On 8 August 2014 08:58, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Jassi,
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:40:47 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 8 August 2014 20:11, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> Upon Mark's suggestion (and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset
>> >> to live the cycle in linux-next.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's the right thing to do, but you sent the request at an
>> > inappropriate time.  The correct time to send your request would be
>> > after 3.17-rc1 has been released, IOW after the current merge window
>> > is over.
>> >
>> > In general, kernel developers don't "remember" requests from one week
>> > to the next; instead, we much prefer people send their requests at the
>> > appropriate times in the development cycle.
>> >
>> OK, thanks for explaining.
>
> As Russell has said, if you remind me after -rc1 is out, I will add
> your tree then.  I will try to remember, but don't depend on it.
>
Hi Stephen, Could you please add now ?

Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
Branch:   mailbox-for-next
Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>

Thanks,
Jassi

Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2243 bytes --]

Hi Jassi,

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:40:50 -0700 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 8 August 2014 08:58, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 20:40:47 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8 August 2014 20:11, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >> >> Upon Mark's suggestion (and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset
> >> >> to live the cycle in linux-next.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, that's the right thing to do, but you sent the request at an
> >> > inappropriate time.  The correct time to send your request would be
> >> > after 3.17-rc1 has been released, IOW after the current merge window
> >> > is over.
> >> >
> >> > In general, kernel developers don't "remember" requests from one week
> >> > to the next; instead, we much prefer people send their requests at the
> >> > appropriate times in the development cycle.
> >> >
> >> OK, thanks for explaining.
> >
> > As Russell has said, if you remind me after -rc1 is out, I will add
> > your tree then.  I will try to remember, but don't depend on it.
> >
> Hi Stephen, Could you please add now ?
> 
> Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
> Branch:   mailbox-for-next
> Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>

Added from tomorrow.

Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next.  As
you may know, this is not a judgment of your code.  The purpose of
linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of
conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window. 

You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
been:
     * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
        Signed-off-by,
     * posted to the relevant mailing list,
     * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
     * successfully unit tested, and 
     * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell 
sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]