From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 03:42:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] thinkpad_acpi: signedness bugs getting current_mode Message-Id: <20150319034203.GA22993@fury.dvhart.com> List-Id: References: <20150311093450.GA3564@mwanda> <20150314210612.GA26465@fury.dvhart.com> <20150315134612.46ca70c5@canb.auug.org.au> <20150315134813.1b0a5685@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20150315134813.1b0a5685@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Dan Carpenter , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Bastien Nocera , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Rafael Wysocki , "H. Peter Anvin" On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 01:48:13PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Darren, > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:46:12 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > The people you will inconvenience more by rebasing are the developers > > who write patches that are based on your tree. If you rebase under > > them, they may have to rebase and fix up the patches they have already > > tested and had reviewed before they can then submit them to you > > (hopefully before you rebase again). > > This, of course, only applied to published trees (which includes > anything in linux-next) - what you do in your own (logically private) > development tree is your own business. Thanks for the guidance Stephen. Unless a more compelling argument comes up, I'll stick to this going forward. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] thinkpad_acpi: signedness bugs getting current_mode Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 20:42:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20150319034203.GA22993@fury.dvhart.com> References: <20150311093450.GA3564@mwanda> <20150314210612.GA26465@fury.dvhart.com> <20150315134612.46ca70c5@canb.auug.org.au> <20150315134813.1b0a5685@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:48297 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753819AbbCSDmT (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2015 23:42:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150315134813.1b0a5685@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Dan Carpenter , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , Bastien Nocera , ibm-acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Rafael Wysocki , "H. Peter Anvin" On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 01:48:13PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Darren, > > On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 13:46:12 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > The people you will inconvenience more by rebasing are the developers > > who write patches that are based on your tree. If you rebase under > > them, they may have to rebase and fix up the patches they have already > > tested and had reviewed before they can then submit them to you > > (hopefully before you rebase again). > > This, of course, only applied to published trees (which includes > anything in linux-next) - what you do in your own (logically private) > development tree is your own business. Thanks for the guidance Stephen. Unless a more compelling argument comes up, I'll stick to this going forward. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center