Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP

From: Lee Jones
Date: Wed Sep 30 2015 - 10:15:58 EST

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 â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
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