Re: [PATCH 03/29] gma500: Ensure the frame buffer has a linearvirtual mapping

[Jiri Kosina]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I am still wondering how come that this is causing trouble to anyone 
> > though -- is anyone really developing real code on top of linux-next 
> > (which should be there to cross-check merge problems between subsystems 
> > and test functionality) instead of particular subsystem tree?
> 
> I run -next on a regular basis. I'm actually doing a lot of Linux mid
> development on it because I need bits going via various trees from x86 to
> staging to input together.

Yes, cross-tree development is definitely a mode in which I can imagine 
linux-next could be used as a base for actual code development (and 
probably the only one which is justifiable).

> I'm not btw saying your approach is wrong - in fact I imagine its the 
> only way to make it managable for some things but in the gma500 case at 
> least and I suspect much of staging it tends to cause merge problems. It 
> would be helpful if you route any gma500 bits via me because of the 
> amount of change in that subtree.

Yeah, thanks.

As said already -- normally I don't accept staging bits at all (for a 
reason), that was a mistake. Sorry for that.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I can either drop the gma500 bits I have queued now (and stop applying 
> > anything touching it, hard rule), or you rebasing on top of Greg's staging 
> > tree instead of linux-next (and I sorting out the merge conflict later).
> 
> If you can drop the gma500 bits and send them my way I'll merge them via
> the gma500 pile.

Sure. I have already pushed out a tree with those reverted and will be 
sending you the patches separately in a second.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/