From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754048AbdECOxT (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2017 10:53:19 -0400 Received: from ns1.pc-advies.be ([85.17.2.162]:46959 "EHLO spo001.leaseweb.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753777AbdECOxB (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 May 2017 10:53:01 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1275 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 10:53:01 EDT Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 16:24:29 +0200 From: Wim Van Sebroeck To: Darren Hart Cc: Guenter Roeck , Andy Shevchenko , Stephen Rothwell , Andy Shevchenko , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with the watchdog tree Message-ID: <20170503142429.GA26229@spo001.leaseweb.nl> References: <20170502140403.24e315cf@canb.auug.org.au> <20170502180940.GB26866@fury> <20170502191217.GA11901@roeck-us.net> <20170502202159.GC26866@fury> <20170502213046.GD26866@fury> <20170502215822.GA18400@roeck-us.net> <20170502223518.GE26866@fury> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170502223518.GE26866@fury> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi All, > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:58:22PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:30:46PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:57:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:12:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > > > >> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > > > > From my perspective, the most direct solution would be to drop these two patches > > > > > from the watchdog tree and let them go through the platform driver x86 tree with > > > > > Guenter's Acked-by. If you have additional patches which depend on these two, > > > > > then if you will provide an immutable branch we can merge, we can do that too > > > > > (but I try to keep the number of external merges to a minimum - which is > > > > > becoming increasingly difficult lately for some reason). > > > > > > > > Sorry for not being in doubt, I just decided that Ack from Guenter > > > > means that default case is to go through PDx86 tree without any > > > > additional agreement. > > > > > > I assumed that was the case, yes. I read through the thread and would have > > > thought the same. As Guenter is directing us to Wim, I think the MAINTAINERS > > > file doesn't really capture the logistics of the watchdog maintainer model, as a > > > > Now I am confused. Please apologize my lack of understanding. > > > > I am listed as "Reviewer", not "Maintainer", for watchdog drivers. > > :facepalm: > > Yes you are, I misread the get_maintainer.pl output ... somehow. > > > Please let me know how that does not capture the logistics of the watchdog > > (or any other) maintainer model, and how to better reflect that I review > > watchdog patches and Wim, as maintainer, sends them to Linus. I thought that > > is what "R:" and "M:" is for ? > > Nope, it's right, I messed up. > > > > > The only possibly unusual detail is that I maintain a branch with all patches > > I have reviewed. This branch is picked up by Wim and either accepted as-is or, > > if he does not agree with some patch, modified accordingly. This branch is > > not in linux-next and thus not part of any official maintainer model, > > but exists for convenience and to enable additional testing through 0day > > and my own test farm. > > > > > Reviewed-by from a listed maintainer wouldn't be typical unless they expected > > > someone else to merge it - in this case, I suppose Guenter meant Wim and not us > > > :-) > > > > > > > You are correct, "Reviewed-by:" typically is intended for Wim, as I thought > > it would be expected for a designated reviewer. I tend to use "Acked-by:" > > if I assume or expect that a patch will be picked up by a different maintainer, > > though I typically add a note saying that this is the case (no idea if I did > > that here). Is there some different set of tags I should use ? > > Nope, we just should have confirmed with Wim. > > > On a side note, it appears that I tagged "watchdog: iTCO_wdt: cleanup > > set/unset no_reboot_bit functions" with "Reviewed-by:", not with "Acked-by:". > > I noticed this as well. If Wim drops these, we'll correct that in our branch. It makes sence to keep the patches together. I will drop the patches from the watchdog tree. Kind regards, Wim.