Message-ID: <c905fd23-19c1-218f-819b-b8ae3434f48c@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 15:43:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.1
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the pm tree
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220104111551.7f26e893@canb.auug.org.au>
 <d485fb62-b576-f9b6-13bc-709a2c409240@gmail.com>
 <20220104190220.45c8e0cf@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220104190220.45c8e0cf@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 04.01.2022 09:02, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Heiner,
> 
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 08:29:28 +0100 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The patch in the pm tree annotating pm_runtime_resume_and_get() as __must_check
>> follows some fixes of pm_runtime_resume_and_get() usage that went through other
>> trees. These fixes are in linux-next but don't seem to be in the pm tree.
>> We talk about:
>> f04b4fb47d83 ("ASoC: sh: rz-ssi: Check return value of pm_runtime_resume_and_get()")
> 
> In the sound-asoc tree.
> 
>> 3d6b661330a7 ("crypto: stm32 - Revert broken pm_runtime_resume_and_get changes")
> 
> In the crypto tree.
> 
> Both those are merged into linux-next after the pm tree.  If Linus did
> the same, the pm tree commit would break his build.  The only way you
> can have that pm tree commit in linux-next is to ask Andrew Morton to
> put it in the post linux-next part of his patch series.  Otherwise, it
> needs to be removed form the pm tree and wait until after the next
> merge window closes (or at least both the above trees have been merged
> by Linus).
> 
Rafael,
can you take care of this?
To avoid such issues I think next time I'd route all dependent patches
through one tree and just get the ACK from the other involved maintainers.

Thank you, Heiner