From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:15:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch/sh updates for 4.6 Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20160317180253.GA24679@brightrain.aerifal.cx> In-Reply-To: <20160317180253.GA24679@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Hi Rich, On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 07:52:32PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Rich Felker 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. Yes you should, if you commit his patches to your 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? IC. You can always try. Chances are high Linus will be pragmatic, given the circumstances. If not, after ELC we'll be only at v4.6-rc3, so getting your stuff in late shouldn't be that big of a problem. >> 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. OK. Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds