Re: [GIT PULL] arch/sh updates for 4.6

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 07:52:32PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > These are the updates Sato-san and I have for arch/sh in this merge
> > window. Aside from some small fixes and cleanup they set the stage for
> > J2 support (by adding framework for boards described by device tree),
> > which should only minimally touch existing files when it's added.
> 
> Thanks for preparing this!
> 
> > Could you pull these changes and send them upstream for 4.6, or let me
> > know if there are problems (like stupid mistakes I made in preparing
> > the branch) or if I should send the request directly to Linus? Rob
> > suggested I might go through you this first time since I'm new to
> > maintainer workflow and the repo (on libc.org) is temporary pending
> > getting it setup on kernel.org.
> 
> It mostly looks fine to me.
> 
> I have only one real comment: if you apply a patch from someone else, you
> should add your own Signed-off-by line (use the "-s" option of "git am").
> As your for-4.6 branch is based on current v4.5, it won't do much harm to
> "rebase -i" it to add the missing SoB-lines.

Should I do that for the ones from Sato-san too even though we're both
listed as maintainers? The only ones I did not touch with my own SoB
were pulled from his tree.

> I think you should send your pull request to Linus directly. You are already
> listed as SuperH maintainer in v4.5:MAINTAINERS.
> As your git repository is not yet on kernel.org, you best add a signed tag
> ("git tag -s"), as Linus is reluctant to pull unsigned tags from other sites.

I don't know if this will help; the reason I don't have our accounts
setup on kernel.org yet is that I don't have my key signed by any
kernel maintainers yet. I'm hoping to get that fixed at ELC next
month. Do you have any recommendations for making this go smoothly
until then?

> After the release of v4.6-rc1, you may want to prepare a "for-next" branch
> where you commit patches that are meant for the next (v4.7) kernel version,
> and inform Stephen Rothwell (CCed, as he may have more advice).
> Then your "for-next" branch will be part of "linux-next", and will receive more
> testing. Actually it may be a good idea to create a "for-next" branch now,
> identical to "sh-for-4.6", let it be included in "linux-next" for a few days,
> and send the pull request to Linus afterwards. That would catch accidentally
> introduced breakage.

OK, I can do that. I don't anticipate any breakage since I haven't
touched other archs but it can't hurt to check.

Rich