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

[Maxime Coquelin]

On 09/30/2015 04:28 PM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > 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".
> So you want the series to be merged in two parts via two different
> trees where neither can be tested? That sounds crazy to me.

Yes, that's what we want, and that's how people work usually.
I will repeat what Lee was saying, what we have to ensure as maintainer 
is that our tree is building.
We will be able to test it with linux-next.

Regards,
Maxime


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/