From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751780Ab2I2Vif (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:38:35 -0400 Received: from inx.pm.waw.pl ([195.116.170.130]:34150 "EHLO inx.pm.waw.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751671Ab2I2Vie (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:38:34 -0400 From: Krzysztof Halasa To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Linus Torvalds , arm@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: ARM SoC tree, Was: Re: [PATCH 05/12] ARM: ixp4xx: use __iomem for MMIO References: <1348868177-21205-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1348868177-21205-6-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201209291458.16112.arnd@arndb.de> <20120929174400.GA6933@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 23:38:31 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20120929174400.GA6933@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Sat, 29 Sep 2012 18:44:01 +0100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I realize my work flow is probably suboptimal, though I can't see an easy solution. Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > That makes no sense what so ever. The tree which is used for the next > stable tree will be Linus' tree, which will be the result of merging all > those other trees into Linus' tree. If you base your changes off only > Linus' tree on the run up to the next merge window, then you are preparing > your changes against an _older_ kernel than if you base them off a tree > containing the changes which will be _included_ in the next merge > window. Yes. I have to fix my tree and ask for pull before the end of merge window (fixes could follow, but it's best when there are no fixes needed). I know it's not a great plan. Fortunately I'm not doing heavy, conflicting development on this. Note I'm not only doing ARM, but also X86 and MIPS, with additional code shared between them, and the "stable" part of it is what I'm paid for. I can't simply work with arm-soc, none of my platforms will even boot with pure arm-soc. > If you want to work in total isolation, that's your choice, but in the > long run you will be playing catch-up rather than being prepared early > for the changes which will happen at the next merge window. If you want > -rc1, rc2, rc3, rc4 etc to be broken on IXP4xx until you get around to > fixing up the merge window breakage, then go ahead. > > Otherwise, participate and be part of the community, and get your changes > into arm-soc, so that others can see what's going on. Unfortunately this seems to require more time on my part, time I don't have. Perhaps I'm missing something? I.e., I can dedicate some time around the merge window (not every one, but this may improve), but not much more. I don't think there are any "others" interested in what's going on on IXP4xx. Simply, there isn't anything of importance here. It won't cause severe conflicts (and "next" helps here), and I post my patches to the list just like all people do. Of course if you can see a better way (given the limitations), I'm open. BTW I still think I'm a part of the community, even if I don't submit code through arm-soc :-) -- Krzysztof Halasa