From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 15:03:45 +0100 Subject: genirq: Generic irq chip available in git In-Reply-To: <20110508140023.GK27807@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20110427212542.GD17290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110508082222.GA27807@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110508133530.GA13815@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110508140023.GK27807@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110508140344.GC15968@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 03:00:23PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 02:35:30PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Would it not make sense to go ahead and apply all the patches that > > maintainers already acked? I rather suspect many people had thought > > that Thomas' future pushes of the code would also include the patches > > that they'd already approved and haven't realised that they need to > > manually push the patches to you. > Which involves me having to read through the entire thread yet again to > figure out what state each patch is at, save them out, edit them to add > each ack to relevant patches, copy the lot to another machine, and then > apply them. > The workload there is on the wrong person. Yeah, I'd actually have expected Thomas to have done this when he pushed the patches to you to be honest - certainly if I were one of the relevant maintainers I'd have been surprised that the patches got dropped.