From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754166Ab1I1NAi (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:00:38 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:65417 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753504Ab1I1NAh convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:00:37 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Nicolas Ferre Subject: Re: at91 material for 3.1 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:00:30 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.35-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'" , "Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" , Linux Kernel list References: <4E82DA79.70006@atmel.com> In-Reply-To: <4E82DA79.70006@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <201109281500.30189.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:ZTp95kUxZx6xheOshj78OlZlUBQcG/0xkZX9cl79SyY b5OQqVyMl1WXm4vcks7RmaoUToBjr9AcKX5s0LDYF77w5l5a0X jBRMx944lLwZJ7jugKlm6DnctoGKOdaEX2uc4ermLbKCi5dSrz fYpQxGYHet08TwjkAInoCvYfYdGm0vCSpjIr0K1krx+p1la05Q iEBMb5kkR+MoLryRDkoe/rJnXHI62liZoBtLyKvFHs9ZH4C/4X dLi7ee/sTdlBLcXxjwmkB54upo4b8Kh0YEVAeHIcq/FsvVe9Do M9VltoYDUzzg/uZniXj3O/9jxUX1TEX8CySvPqB0+kT5KEUtCr ZC0TsCUqWEfoLoiXTwjk= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > I have two little patches about Kconfig and one defconfig that are > suitable for a 3.1 inclusion. > > I wonder if you plan a pull request to Linus before 3.1-final? > > If yes, would you prefer each patch in a feature branch on its own > (at91-kconfig, at91-defconfig for instance) or a generic at91-fixes? If you have updates that should go into the current release, they should be bug fixes of some sort, so a single "fixes" branch is good for those. Just send a pull request so I can add them to the common fixes branch in the arm-soc tree. I generally send everything in there to Linus when there is a significant amount of it, or when significant time has passed since I sent the previous pull request or when there is something urgent in the tree. >>From your description, it sounds like it's not urgent but I that it's still appropriate for 3.1. Remember that when you send bug fixes I want to have a short statement how important the patches are, roughly listing them as one of 1. regression: it's broken in this version without the fix, and the previous release was ok. 2. stable backport: the problem has been around for some time and the bug fix should be applied to all older kernels as well. (add a line "Cc: stable@kernel.org" below your Signed-off-by in that case) 3. bug in new code: some new feature was merged in this window and a bug was found in it. 4. minor bug fix: can wait for the next merge window, e.g. incorrect debug output or nonoptimial defconfigs. Arnd