From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932514AbbI3OPu (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:15:50 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]:33821 "EHLO mail-wi0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755842AbbI3OPo (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:15:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:15:39 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Herbert Xu Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Peter Korsgaard , Fabio Estevam , Kieran Bingham , "kernel@stlinux.com" , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP Message-ID: <20150930141539.GD27197@x1> References: <1442497557-9271-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150918140756.GK9249@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150918151137.GA10763@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150918155112.GE3218@x1> <20150929142932.GY27197@x1> <20150930134757.GA18408@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20150930134757.GA18408@gondor.apana.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:29:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > I see that your tree is 8 days old, so this may have been resolved > > already, but would you be kind enough to ensure you remove the 6th > > (ARM) patch from your repo please? I wouldn't want it to cause > > conflicts and for Maxime and yourself to get shouted at by Linus. > > I prefer not to merge patches that cannot be tested. Without > the DT bits in patch 6 the other five patches are useless. So > I think patch 6 should be applied together with the other five > which add the driver. That's crazy talk. If all subsystem maintainers abide by this rule there would be chaos. We'd either need to send pull-requests to each other for every set which crossed a subsystems boundary, or 1000's of merge conflicts would ensue at merge time. The (sensible) rule we normally stick to is; as long as there isn't a _build_ dependency, then the patches should filter though their respective trees; _functional_ dependencies have nothing to do with us as maintainers. Another chaos preventing rule we abide by is; thou shalt not apply patches belonging to other maintainer's subsystems without the appropriate Ack-by and a subsequent "you may take this though your tree" and/or "please send me an immutable pull-request". > Of course if Linus wants me to revert patch 6 in case of any > potential conflicts with Maxime's tree I'll do that. Linus? Why bother Linus? The whole purpose of this is to _not_ pi$$ him off. This stuff is common sense. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog