From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:11:00 +0000 Subject: When does mach-types get updated in a tree? In-Reply-To: <0812376c-ea4b-4185-aa6e-6fb582dce21f@VA3EHSMHS032.ehs.local> References: <20110228101030.GB29843@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <0812376c-ea4b-4185-aa6e-6fb582dce21f@VA3EHSMHS032.ehs.local> Message-ID: <20110228151100.GB1937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 07:35:57AM -0700, John Linn wrote: > What is your suggestion to people with regards to patches that need the > update? The only suggestion I can make is: don't wait until the last minute before putting something into the machine registry, because you will get into these kinds of problems. If I do an update now, it'll be the second time it's happened in February. It's likely it will need another update just before the merge window too in 3-4 weeks time. So really all that I can say is that people need to ensure that they get stuff from the machine registry earlier rather than later. I do think we're heading for a major problem with the mach-types file becoming too big inspite of its brevity. I think I may start marking entries as 'inactive' and therefore omitted from the kernel's tree if they don't appear in mainline within one year of being allocated (or some similar rule.) > I'm open to suggestions, just trying to work with everyone the best way > to get Xilinx patches into the system. The only thing I can think is to wait a couple more weeks and I'll see about doing an update mid-March. Maybe by then we can have a smaller file...