Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752706AbbDQHBP (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:01:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:36772 "EHLO mail-wi0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752067AbbDQHBG (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:01:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5530A572.6060506@roeck-us.net> References: <1429248059-18461-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20150417060104.GH6256@pek-khao-d1.corp.ad.wrs.com> <5530A572.6060506@roeck-us.net> From: Grant Likely Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:00:45 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: CaoGzd8saEMgOVLXFg-3i4agiuE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: Remove leftover dependencies on PPC_OF To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Kevin Hao , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Michael Ellerman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1901 Lines: 43 On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 04/16/2015 11:01 PM, Kevin Hao wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:20:59PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> >>> powerpc qemu runs fail with the current upstream kernel. >>> Bisect points to commit 52d996270032 ("powerpc: kill PPC_OF"). >>> Unfortunately, that commit did not remove all instances of PPC_OF. >>> Practical impact is that the serial driver used by powerpc qemu >>> targets is no longer built into the test kernel. >> >> >> Sorry for the break. This is a dependency issue. The patch 213dce3c17a6 >> ("tty: kconfig: remove the superfluous dependency on PPC_OF") has already >> been merged into tty-next, but still not propagate to upstream yet. I >> failed >> to reminder Michael of this when the pulling request is sent to Linus. >> > > Guess that explains why I don't see the breakage in linux-next. > > This kind of problem seems to be happening a lot in this commit window. > > Is there a new mechanism in place which requires splitting such series > into multiple parts ? Personally I preferred the "old" style, where > the entire series would have been handled by one maintainer, with Acks > from the others. The rules haven't changed. Maintainers are doing the wrong thing. If a series is split up into multiple parts, then maintainers *must* coordinate to put the prerequisites into a single branch that can be merged into each branch handling it. However, it is still almost always better to just merge the entire series via a single tree. Make noise whenever you see this kind of breakage because it means a maintainer has done the wrong thing. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/