From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] sky2 update for 2.6.22 Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:27:17 -0400 Message-ID: <464258D5.5040402@garzik.org> References: <20070509034949.624934448@linux-foundation.org> <46414B30.6050603@garzik.org> <20070509074811.23ba0bb9@freekitty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Andrew Morton To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:50109 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759775AbXEIX1T (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2007 19:27:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070509074811.23ba0bb9@freekitty> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 09 May 2007 00:16:48 -0400 > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> Patches are against netdev-2.6 upstream code branch. >>> >>> This includes a several bug fixes, and code cleanup to use standard >>> functions. There are a couple of PCI changes. One bug fix, and moving >>> common code in PCI base. >> The standard development process is: >> >> * new code gets pushed to me during 2.6.X-rc >> * that code is auto-propagated to akpm's -mm tree for >> additional exposure >> * merge window opens >> * I push upstream >> >> That ensures code gets at least /some/ additional review, testing, >> "settling" time. > > Sorry for the late merge, but between the closing of OSDL office and > the fixing of critical bugs the other stuff got pushed into the "next release" > bin and wasn't really ready until now. > >> This is a late date to be expecting stuff to be pushed straight into 2.6.22. > > Then hold it for 2.6.23. You sure you don't want to split off the bug fixes, and submit those for 2.6.22? An oops fix is certainly 2.6.22 material... >> Additionally, the rule for creating patches is: diff against latest >> vanilla linux-2.6.git tree, unless dependencies exist in netdev. After >> the merge window opens, #upstream is often empty or even a bit behind >> upstream, since Linus pulls that. > > One patch wouldn't have applied unless the recent patch that you > accepted was included. OK, I stand corrected on this issue, then. It sounds like you diff'd correctly. Jeff