From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] MMC/SDHCI fixes Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:41:38 +0000 Message-ID: <20151221134138.GB8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20151221113956.GA3712@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20151221125120.GZ8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pandora.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:40028 "EHLO pandora.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751042AbbLUNlq (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:41:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: Gregory CLEMENT , linux-mmc , Marcin Wojtas , Shawn Guo , Sascha Hauer On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 02:23:17PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 21 December 2015 at 13:51, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:35:36PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> I decided to try to apply it for my next branch, to get some good test > >> coverage. Although, it failed when reaching patch 8. Would you mind > >> posting yet another new re-based version, please. > > > > Given that these are _fixes_ and need to be applied to -rc kernels, they > > are based on -rc6. I don't see the point of rebasing them onto non-rc > > kernels to test, because then you're not testing against where they > > should be applied. > > I see your point, but I would rather not aim for rcs with these > changes, unless you insist. > > Not because they aren't fixes, but because it's old errors. Instead we > can "cc stable" or use the fixes tag as we are in quite late stage of > the rc. This approach will also allow us to get a bit better test > coverage. Even if we do this, we still need to get _these_ tested because _these_ will be the ones which need to be applied to stable trees such as the 4.4 stable series. What I suggest is applying them against -rc6, and then merging them into your -next branch, and fixing the resulting conflicts. We then have the patches ready for -rc, but which can still be tested in -next (for what that's worth.) If people find problems, they can always re-test these patches without all the development stuff. If I were to give you a set of patches suitable just for -next, then people can only test with all the development stuff included, and we'll have no idea whether any new problems are the result of development or these patches. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.