From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DE1E2F4A16 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2025 13:41:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765114909; cv=none; b=Babmezw15sRC4g4Zr5tIwE6CFqem03kldjCw200eYXtbnOqGfc5Ax5YS8zxZ5oXt7tu+L3oJNi7JXiKEmJymKrng0UmUmQMs/pALok0b7H9JFoBAVEUxAs/E0Q3IbRLD1yUt4kgPFf7HetfeED898pzI6qSbgl1K8cM4T0y5P90= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765114909; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mDdNs2hfEH2c18qWweBlk6scjov0/QJQumMNMdkZVYg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=E8/7Bv21BAGG+J7ue12bfnu3Eb6anxeT5o0zpGIEwpnnW4f6uWVnI1h2gqwOBiz1TlIbBdvZusgOHvzZFydCMReavn2cRIj0MbSkASB135P4NWZvX4Jx5HFg0CT9MLd1Fe31K3+SJr3q5gksQac0cAjHNZOIwzdwhYOS0lBH/AE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=CtJuLWOg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="CtJuLWOg" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=mDdN s2hfEH2c18qWweBlk6scjov0/QJQumMNMdkZVYg=; b=CtJuLWOgjkJix37grBot Wb5e2g4NwnfXf6KWa4bhFp3NybkkohP9tT4UL8ot6f1kksKyLuUjDfc2jyOIGKQ8 Hju8Y4FhIPaz7+4X3JTDZF7Q6RZPFRf+vUHEbvU7fuDVURDgZc0e8Z4sX0F0fbJI nVAuEej5cYMxTEqZKhVvbV+7Qf//XwJpi9MkuM+pW6sz2g4IsLfJQNy6Oz9jC8YL m4tIEpXxR+Gfiz5e/4N9ttLZQqojbj+5vr7koUiqB8R9pebl40P5CgQcIa5OiNE1 22EDs+uz2bVJ4Nb152GV7+/16WYXg0v4jDZiHOq+xAsZFerDkI4cPqJsWvdnUiHn yQ== Received: (qmail 2189451 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2025 14:41:37 +0100 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with UTF8SMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 7 Dec 2025 14:41:37 +0100 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@rMNM1lxFBM8gAQ9wBwAkACQ4Xrn/InjS Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2025 22:41:34 +0900 From: Wolfram Sang To: Andi Shyti Cc: linux-i2c , lkml Subject: Re: i2c-host for v6.18 Message-ID: References: <5sisddiomyxmkvm744h5luphomyadnenpjk5pf5kemqw7tcok3@qzmbc2cr42vw> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XZ731Wa6vAvUl0pY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5sisddiomyxmkvm744h5luphomyadnenpjk5pf5kemqw7tcok3@qzmbc2cr42vw> --XZ731Wa6vAvUl0pY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Urgs, but this is highly problematic. I can't pull something based on > > 6.18. Usually, things are based on -rc1 or something early to show Linus > > that it has been in -next for a while. He won't pull something that is > > less than 48 hours in public and so won't I. >=20 > Just a note that I merged the last few patches on Wednesday. So, > if the 48 hour window applies, we are well within it. Well, it is not strictly about 48 hours... I just picked the number because all of the rebased patches were ~2 days old at the time I looked at them. > As I mentioned privately, I can split this into two pull requests > and use the older reference for the earlier patches if that > helps. To me it feels more like a formality, since those patches > have already been in -next for a few weeks and were only rebased > on top of v6.18. But this is the key point: after rebasing, no one can see how long they have been in -next. Especially not the person you ask to pull. This doesn't look trustworthy. If you hadn't rebased, then one can easily see that most patches have been in -next for weeks. And if then there are some new patches on top which are simple enough (like adding an ID), then the whole pull request probably still looks trustworthy. > But I am happy to do whatever you prefer. I prefer one pull request using the ref before the 6.18 rebase. --XZ731Wa6vAvUl0pY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmk1hA4ACgkQFA3kzBSg KbauWw//VG0Kk7Fd/H9rrs2Yi+4D80cB8hP44TomQJ+BHPVYr12fBj5IJDmN3rNF kLYIxNxfX4GpWd9+KZvwhW4oxKKURDbGAKCszoPoUHn6pAhFrxwkQbI5LF3w9ZEb TLPNGf1KCXv2JGdSUB7Gdur2sf8wQ7AFxQsxOpJxgTNz6ih3W9zb82w6TR3aVSx7 sv4hMbxdwtUDIWElNhvfIlFZus/sYK1R1nSApd33VyAylK5Aw2vUN3Kp4W6KwzHA i8W1suuMW1Y/ek+PGidFPmkAT84GxbruoyK+8LtBTsBLTvpHrt1PZcGLvszjvpJo wLonfHkJfnfwo2Ok7hqDpKsr64rAJS9USCeS7bIC/p1p9hA0Bq+/zxIXJ3Y7xl1g VugO6ceM4EdwYXLq2b2fwcmRnkf1QFJoUOwcDT70aSd5x9FI91XAPJzl4Py27TEb CpXfJuzMP5O9gEsyIuBCTT+UtAQnMuMYFcdwn3XWprawSrtrritsJi/tJXhAMFHk d2GhTT1E0UL4Hy65Z/Qeyj1vRhIIv9+Bnax4tXN0M1mraVV7Pej5t3Hqdc++tBJL QGSzFDwcNKWI3C10nsPmCjsjkLVvWC1E4ws6UtgwgMt16t48NnqrXo0x1FVtQj5C V9edJo+QmAqWFs+VlCDr4p3FcCefpEKEP5rGJepJFyHSpe/aJBY= =icdt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XZ731Wa6vAvUl0pY--