From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Disintegrate UAPI for can Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:08:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20121010.160816.1174547411763490557.davem@davemloft.net> References: <30687.1349789402@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <27643.1349892024@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <5075D2AF.1010409@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:53328 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751407Ab2JJUIU (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:08:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5075D2AF.1010409@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: mkl@pengutronix.de Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, socketcan@hartkopp.net, linux-can@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Marc Kleine-Budde Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:55:27 +0200 > On 10/10/2012 08:00 PM, David Howells wrote: >> Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> >>> On 10/09/2012 03:30 PM, David Howells wrote: >>>> Can you merge the following branch into the can tree please. >>>> >>>> This is to complete part of the Userspace API (UAPI) disintegration for which >>>> the preparatory patches were pulled recently. After these patches, userspace >>>> headers will be segregated into: >>>> >>>> include/uapi/linux/.../foo.h >>>> >>>> for the userspace interface stuff, and: >>>> >>>> include/linux/.../foo.h >>>> >>>> for the strictly kernel internal stuff. >>> >>> Nice work David. The upstream for can-next is David Miller's net-next >>> tree. He doesn't like if I pull unrelated stuff into my tree, so I'm >>> going to cherry pick your patch. This is not yet possible, as net-next >>> doesn't include the latest patches from the 3.7 merge window, so that >>> compilation breaks. After the merge window closes David Miller merges >>> back the latest changes to net-next. I'll postpone your patch until >>> then, this means the code will go into v3.8. I'm not familiar with the >>> UAPI conversion, should your patch go via linux-can and David's net into >>> v3.7? >> >> It's okay for the patch to go into 3.8 if that is easier for you. As it's >> scripted, I can regenerate your branch after -rc1 if that helps too. > > I don't mind, as long as it compiles (using you tag), and it does, the > patch doesn't break anything. From the linux-can and David Miller's net > point of view, v3.7 is closed for new features just bug fixes are > allowed. But I'm open to make an exception, if UAPI hits mainline in > v3.7 on most subsystems. Hopefully David sees it the same way. We're putting the UAPI stuff in now, don't delay this please.