Re: staging patch not in staging tree (was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: ft1000-usb: fixed table alignment)

[Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:05:47AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:03:34AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 07:06:49PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 03:02:37PM +0200, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > > > On 2015-06-22 06:29, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > > which tree have you been using?
> > > > > Greg will have three staging tree, use staging-testing
> > > > 
> > > > I have used linux-next tree :/
> > > well, I am now confused why linux-next is not having this struct.
> > > at line 415 of drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_debug.c
> > > struct timeval tv; is there in staging-next. And today's linux-next
> > > has merged staging-next. Then how that struct timeval is not there in
> > > linux-next ?
> > 
> > I was doing a bisect to see why the files are differing in staging-next
> > and linux-next. And it turns out to be:
> > 8b37bf430656 ("staging: ft1000: Replace timeval and time_t with time64_t")
> > 
> > which didn't go through the staging tree.
> > 
> 
> It's going through Arnd's tree since he does time stuff.  He should have
> sent it for an Ack or something.  Maybe he is planning to do that later.
> 
> The patch is very old.
> 
> Not a big deal?
there was no patch in ft1000 so its not a big deal. But will it not be
merge conflict when Linus tries to merge staging tree and Arnd's tree?

regards
sudip