Re: next-20221122: tinyconfig: ppc n s390: kernel/printk/printk.c:95:1: error: type specifier missing, defaults to 'int'; ISO C99 and later do not support implicit int [-Werror,-Wimplicit-int]

[Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>]

On Wed 2022-11-30 09:59:46, John Ogness wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On 2022-11-29, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > And this seems have avoided breaking things, so I moved it on top of
> > the earlier srcunmisafe.2022.11.09a stack with a new
> > srcunmisafe.2022.11.29a branch name.
> >
> > If you need me to, I can push this into the upcoming merge window.  Or
> > you could rebase on top of it, so that when the printk() series goes
> > in, this commit will come along for the ride.
> 
> It would be great if the series could land in linux-next, to give any
> other issues with the series a chance to show up.
> 
> Also, since the series is relatively significant, it would probably be
> better if it was pushed into the 6.2 merge window by you. Petr will need
> to make sure the printk series for the merge window is properly rebased
> for it.

I have rebased the branch rework/console-list-lock in printk/linux.git
on top of the new srcunmisafe.2022.11.29a.

It means that the changes will be part of the pull request from
the printk tree.

Anyway, it would be nice if Paul adds this branch into the pull request
for RCU tree as well. Then we could both send pull request soon
and it will not matter which one will be handled first.

Does it make any sense, please?

I have never done it this way before. The motivation is to allow
sending both pull requests soon. Linus likes early pull requests.
The fact that it will go also via RCU tree would make it clear
that Paul wanted to send it in this form. Or is it a bad idea?
Do I over-complicate it?

Best Regards,
Petr