Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932218AbbDQITj (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:19:39 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:34460 "EHLO mail-ie0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752481AbbDQITa (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:19:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150417074353.GA21136@kroah.com> 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> <20150417074353.GA21136@kroah.com> From: Grant Likely Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:19:09 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6-lW_Ii9XO6FvjhV32Q5sDdPOO8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: Remove leftover dependencies on PPC_OF To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Guenter Roeck , Kevin Hao , 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: 2632 Lines: 56 On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 08:00:45AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: >> 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. > > Well, the maintainer needs to be _told_ that the patch that is being > sent to them shouldn't go through their tree and that it depends on > other patches, so that they can properly just ack them. > > Which is what happened here, someone sent me a patch, and I applied it. > Nothing broke that I could determine, and I never got a report of > something breaking, so how am I, the maintainer, doing the wrong thing? My apologies, Yes of course. s/a maintainer/someone/ 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/