From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Walker Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:42:37 -0700 Message-ID: <1287513757.10071.45.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> References: <20101018103540.7bd9c535.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1287442418.5376.38.camel@Joe-Laptop> <201010191518.04147.arnd@arndb.de> <1287507806.10071.16.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fifo99.com ([67.223.236.141]:34087 "EHLO fifo99.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755276Ab0JSSnI (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:43:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Joe Perches , Russell King , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, lkml , Jeremy Kerr , Jeff Ohlstein > That's why on occasions we do transgress the established process to > accommodate such changes. Imagine just for a moment the patch that > modified the interrupt callback prototype to remove the useless pt_regs > argument. Obviously, it had to be done atomically to the _whole_ tree, > and it was agreed that this patch was to be applied at the end of the > merge window. But no one expected a single minute sending a CC to _all_ > the driver authors. I don't actually know which patch your talking about, but it sounds pretty simple.. I'm not really addressing really simple fixes, even tho changing a single parameter on a function could be done broken up depending on what it is. Daniel