Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm tree

From: John Stultz
Date: Mon May 16 2011 - 14:47:32 EST

On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 12:37 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Obviously I shouldn't have added John's ack, which was sent during Monday
> nighttime to the commit so quickly, but instead waited a week before doing
> so. Had I done that you wouldn't be complaining about "24 hours" or "18
> hours".

Yea, so its unfair for Russell to be taking all the heat on this one.

I acked it, and I should have caught this issue. Part of the reason for
that is because my base for testing things is usually linus' tree, and
not tip.

Also the clocksource_register_hz/khz patches in tip (which also includes
Russell's "clocksource name const" patch) have been taking forever to
get upstream. They are low priority non-critical cleanups at this point,
so that's ok, but the original pull request for those was in Feb. And
the slower those sorts of things take to get upstream, the bigger the
window is for a collision.

So I'll try to be more proactive about grabbing and queuing such fixes
against the appropriate tip branch so that we can catch these issues,
and ideally the related patches properly move through their proper
maintainer tree.

At the same time, having recently done some similar consolidation work
in the RTC tree, as well as in the past the various clocksource work,
splitting up such changes across a number of different maintainers can
be a painfully slow process. This case isn't so bad because it was only
three spots, but I can understand if you don't see your patches pulled
into various maintainer trees quickly, you might use your normal
upstream route to get them in. Maybe it was a little too quick this
time, but I'm somewhat sympathetic to it.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at