From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752821AbZEHKrO (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 06:47:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754464AbZEHKq4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 06:46:56 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:36678 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754944AbZEHKqz (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 06:46:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:46:11 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Andrew Morton , greg@kroah.com, norsk5@yahoo.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, mchehab@redhat.com, aris@redhat.com, edt@aei.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21 v3] amd64_edac: EDAC module for AMD64 Message-ID: <20090508104611.GA11596@elte.hu> References: <1241704183-29223-1-git-send-email-borislav.petkov@amd.com> <20090507142724.GM481@elte.hu> <20090507143807.GA15923@aftab> <20090507135227.abbbc7dc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090507211859.GA28770@elte.hu> <20090508100738.GA21064@aftab> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090508100738.GA21064@aftab> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Borislav Petkov wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 11:18:59PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 7 May 2009 16:38:07 +0200 > > > Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 04:27:24PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > Regarding workflow, the arch/x86 bits look good to me now, so you've > > > > > got my Acked-by for that. > > > > > > > > Cool, thanks. > > > > > > > > Does that mean you're going to pick that one or... > > > > > > > > > Most of the EDAC patches are hosted in > > > > > -mm, so we could carry them in the x86 tree separately as well and > > > > > export it to linux-next so that -mm will have it automatically. > > > > > > > > is the bunch going through Andrew as a whole? > > > > > > > > > > I could. But there's negligible overlap with other EDAC work so > > > we might as well merge this via IngoTrees or directly from your > > > tree. > > > > If Doug and you agrees too then i have no problem (at all) with > > Borislav carrying these bits in a separate tree, as long as he also > > opens an edac-next branch for linux-next and asks Stephen to pull > > it, and keeps it an append-mostly tree that isnt rebased. > > I'll still need to rebase stuff to latest Linus tree for now since > we're not yet ready reorganizing/cleaning up the code. After it > gets merged, I'll switch to append-only mode. that's OK! Rebasing of your own commits is fine (especially during active development, and especially if there's a lot of outstanding review feedback). What matters is to have an eventual cool-down so that earlier commits become append-only. That makes a tree more trustable - while you never know what's in a fully rebased tree. Ingo