Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:18:34 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To:     Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <mingo@kernel.org>,
        <parri.andrea@gmail.com>, <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        <peterz@infradead.org>, <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        <npiggin@gmail.com>, <dhowells@redhat.com>, <j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk>,
        <luc.maranget@inria.fr>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Trial of conflict resolution of Alan's patch
In-Reply-To: <fe361fba-d6ec-3a70-6ab9-e148bccb5833@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1802161015010.1402-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018, Akira Yokosawa wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> My forward-port patch doesn't apply to the "lkmm" branch.
> It looks like "linux-kernel-hardware.cat" is intentionally omitted there.
> Am I guessing right?
> 
> If this is the case, I can prepare a patch to be applied to "lkmm".
> But I can't compose a proper change log. So I'd like Alan to post
> a patch with my SOB appended. Does this approach sound reasonable?

The patch is not yet ready to be merged.  At the very least, I need to
include an update to explanation.txt along with it.  When it is all 
ready, I will rebase it on Paul's repository and post it.

Which reminds me: Now that the material has been accepted into the 
kernel, do we need to keep the github repository?  It has the 
linux-kernel-hardware.cat file, but otherwise it seems to be redundant.

Alan