From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/24] MMC/SDHCI fixes Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:23:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20151221113956.GA3712@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20151221125120.GZ8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-yk0-f181.google.com ([209.85.160.181]:34005 "EHLO mail-yk0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751049AbbLUNXS (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:23:18 -0500 Received: by mail-yk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p130so130206212yka.1 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:23:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151221125120.GZ8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Gregory CLEMENT , linux-mmc , Marcin Wojtas , Shawn Guo , Sascha Hauer 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. What do you think? Kind regards Uffe