Message ID | 87y2kkesj5.fsf@BL-laptop |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL,v2] ARM: mvebu: fixes for v5.9 (#1) | expand |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:23:07 +0100 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:01 PM Gregory CLEMENT > <gregory.clement@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gclement/mvebu.git tags/mvebu-fixes-5.9-1 > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 0b58725fb9a446890c1fd28fc6c9e393ce21acb7: > > > > ARM: mvebu: drop pointless check for coherency_base (2020-09-24 10:19:06 +0200) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > mvebu fixes for 5.9 (part 1) > > > > - Allow to use correct MAC address for particular DSA slaves / > > ethernet ports on Espressobin (Armada 3720) > > > > - Remove incorrect check in ll_get_coherency_base() used for Armada > > 370/XP SoCs. > > > > Hi Gregory, > > as you may have noticed, your last set of pull requests didn't make > it in so far, sorry about that. > > I have taken this one into the arm/fixes branch now and > will send it in the next few days. I see that one of the fixes has a > Cc:stable tag and the other one is not urgent, so they will make it > into the stable kernels. > > The other two branches you sent are not part of v5.10. Let me > know if you prefer me to pick these up for v5.11 unchanged or > you'd rather rebase the contents and send new pull requests. > > I see Marek Behún sent three more fixes Cc:soc@kernel.org. > I assume you are going to pick these up and send a pull > request for them, but I can pick them up directly if that helps. > > Arnd Arnd, Gregory, these fixes are not stable yet, please don't pull them. We will send a new version after we end up our discussion about that issue with Marvell. Marek
Hello Arnd and Marek, I don't know why but I didn't receive the email from Arnd. It is thanks to Marek answer that I was able to see it. I also don't see Arn email in the arm-kernel archive mailing list; http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-October/date.html > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:23:07 +0100 > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:01 PM Gregory CLEMENT >> <gregory.clement@bootlin.com> wrote: >> > >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gclement/mvebu.git tags/mvebu-fixes-5.9-1 >> > >> > for you to fetch changes up to 0b58725fb9a446890c1fd28fc6c9e393ce21acb7: >> > >> > ARM: mvebu: drop pointless check for coherency_base (2020-09-24 10:19:06 +0200) >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > mvebu fixes for 5.9 (part 1) >> > >> > - Allow to use correct MAC address for particular DSA slaves / >> > ethernet ports on Espressobin (Armada 3720) >> > >> > - Remove incorrect check in ll_get_coherency_base() used for Armada >> > 370/XP SoCs. >> > >> >> Hi Gregory, >> >> as you may have noticed, your last set of pull requests didn't make >> it in so far, sorry about that. Is there a way to avoid this in the future ? For the last release I was not notified that the pull request was merged, so I wasn't worried about it. I was surprised to not see my branch in the arm-soc tree, but i though that the branch was not updated on the server. >> >> I have taken this one into the arm/fixes branch now and >> will send it in the next few days. I see that one of the fixes has a >> Cc:stable tag and the other one is not urgent, so they will make it >> into the stable kernels. >> >> The other two branches you sent are not part of v5.10. Let me >> know if you prefer me to pick these up for v5.11 unchanged or >> you'd rather rebase the contents and send new pull requests. Actually there was 3 other branch: dt, dt64 and arm. I will rebase them. However I wonder if it could worse to apply the patch "MAINTAINERS: switch mvebu tree to kernel.org" to 5.10, as it will help people to know where is located the current development branch. >> >> I see Marek Behún sent three more fixes Cc:soc@kernel.org. >> I assume you are going to pick these up and send a pull >> request for them, but I can pick them up directly if that helps. >> >> Arnd > > Arnd, Gregory, these fixes are not stable yet, please don't pull them. > We will send a new version after we end up our discussion about that > issue with Marvell. OK, so I will submit a new pull request for fixes once the new version will be submitted. Thanks, Gregory > > Marek
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 5:37 PM Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com> wrote: > > Hello Arnd and Marek, > > I don't know why but I didn't receive the email from Arnd. It is thanks > to Marek answer that I was able to see it. I also don't see Arn email in > the arm-kernel archive mailing list; > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2020-October/date.html I've been having problems with my @arndb.de address getting flagged as spam, so the problem is on my end. > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 10:23:07 +0100 > > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:01 PM Gregory CLEMENT > >> <gregory.clement@bootlin.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Gregory, > >> > >> as you may have noticed, your last set of pull requests didn't make > >> it in so far, sorry about that. > > Is there a way to avoid this in the future ? > > For the last release I was not notified that the pull request was > merged, so I wasn't worried about it. I was surprised to not see my > branch in the arm-soc tree, but i though that the branch was not > updated on the server. There was some lack of communication on our side: Olof had done all the merges but then wasn't around for the last few weeks and I failed to notice that I should take over. > >> I have taken this one into the arm/fixes branch now and > >> will send it in the next few days. I see that one of the fixes has a > >> Cc:stable tag and the other one is not urgent, so they will make it > >> into the stable kernels. > >> > >> The other two branches you sent are not part of v5.10. Let me > >> know if you prefer me to pick these up for v5.11 unchanged or > >> you'd rather rebase the contents and send new pull requests. > > Actually there was 3 other branch: dt, dt64 and arm. I will rebase them. > > However I wonder if it could worse to apply the patch "MAINTAINERS: > switch mvebu tree to kernel.org" to 5.10, as it will help people to know > where is located the current development branch. Yes, please send that as a bugfix, I generally take MAINTAINER file updates along with code fixes as they are obviously harmless and useful to have in the release. Arnd