Re: [PATCH 1/4] TTY: serial, fix locking imbalance

Jiri Slaby
2011-09-27T08:26:16Z

On 09/27/2011 01:36 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 07:50:51PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 09/24/2011 12:04 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:21:20PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> But if there are more trees depending on the tree, then OK, I will live
>>>> with that ;).
>>>
>>> For the tty tree, I really doubt it, but I am not sure (rumor has it
>>> that some people are basing on it, but that might just be rumor.)
>>
>> Ok, for the other uart patches I have, it would be convenient for me to
>> have the possibility of rebase. Would you mind if I add something like
>> uart-cleanup tree to the -next tree and will have the patches there
>> until I send them to you?
>
> linux-next is for stuff that people are confident will show up in the
> next release, not for general "let's throw it out there to see if it
> works" type thing.

No, it's not definitely a stuff like that. It's all tested and working
with my testbed. It just may need some tuning for some specific hardware
or cases. Especially I have no possibility to test drivers for
architectures other than x86. I only (cross-)compile-test them.

>> Just for the purpose of fine tuning (and rebasing) if something needs to
>> be fixed in them. The code is so complex, that I'm afraid I omitted some
>> semi-hidden dependency. And it would be great to fix patches like when I
>> used to work with the -mm tree.
>
> Perhaps you should just work with Andrew and put these in -mm for now
> until you feel comfortable that it's all worked out and no rebasing
> would be needed anymore?

Yes, I can try that as I'm not sure Andrew will agree. Let's see. And
also note that -mm is a part of -next already. That's why I was thinking
about a separate tree.

thanks,
--
js