From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: balbi@ti.com (Felipe Balbi) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:05:52 -0500 Subject: Dropping "depends on SMP" for HAVE_ARM_TWD -- take 2 In-Reply-To: <56142C74.4010002@free.fr> References: <560E53E3.7070207@free.fr> <560E8584.8000207@free.fr> <20151002180255.GK12338@codeaurora.org> <56138485.4090600@free.fr> <20151006193815.GI12338@codeaurora.org> <56142C74.4010002@free.fr> Message-ID: <87h9m31zdb.fsf@saruman.tx.rr.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, Mason writes: > Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> Mason wrote: >> >>> Did you see my "twd: Don't set CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP unconditionally" >>> patch? What should I do now for it to be accepted? >> >> Assuming you sent it to the correct maintainer from the >> MAINTAINERS file, I would expect them to apply it directly. > > > > The patch touches arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c > I do not see any entry for arch/arm/kernel in MAINTAINERS. > This means I should fall back to the generic arch/arm entry, right? > > ARM PORT > M: Russell King > L: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers) > W: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ > S: Maintained > F: arch/arm/ > > AFAIU, there is a separate process for submitting patches for arch/arm: > http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > > Russell, Mark Rutland wrote: "Otherwise this looks ok." > Does that mean I should now submit via the web form? Mason, please have a read at Russell's patch info [1]. You don't even need to use the web form. [1] http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/info.php -- balbi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: