Re: [PATCH 59/73] drivers/gpio: delete non-required instances of include

Paul Gortmaker
2014-01-24T02:21:40Z

[Re: [PATCH 59/73] drivers/gpio: delete non-required instances of include <linux/init.h>] On 24/01/2014 (Fri 09:58) Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi Linus,
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:12:43 +0100 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> wrote:
> >
> > > None of these files are actually using any __init type directives
> > > and hence don't need to include <linux/init.h>. Most are just a
> > > left over from __devinit and __cpuinit removal, or simply due to
> > > code getting copied from one driver to the next.
> > >
> > > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
> >
> > Patch applied for v3.15.
>
> Yet that patch is in linux-next today. And just 2 days ago I mailed out this request (as I do during each merge window):
>
> "Please do not add any code intended for v3.15 to your linux-next included
> trees until after v3.14-rc1 has been released."
>
> I have no problem with that particular patch being sent to Linus during
> this merge window (in fact Paul intends to send whatever is left of the
> series at the end of the merge window), but it makes me wonder about the
> other commits that you have added to the gpio tree (and the pinctrl tree)
> today. Are they intended for this merge window or v3.15?

For what it is worth, I'm not removing any patches from my series file
until they explicitly conflict and/or become redundant. If a maintainer
says they are adding the patch, I add a comment in the series file, but
I don't remove them until I see them come into next via another branch,
and/or sfr reports a conflict/redundancy.

Thanks,
Paul.
--

> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au