Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:23:12 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] toshiba: Use ioremap_cached |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > > > i suspect this shouldnt go via x86.git but i've queued it up to > > track it. > > Please don't "queue things up to track them". Just queue them up to > merge them, or don't queue them at all. > > Because if you queue it up then I will not. If you later for some > reason unqueue it then volia, it is lost. We should aim to avoid > having multiple copies of a patch sitting around the place.
but ... i dont just unqueue 'for some reason and then volia'. If we did that we'd be losing patches left and right. Every patch we unqueue happens in a very predictable protocol that should avoid patches getting lost.
( basically we only remove any patch when they are broken but even then there's a clear notification. Even a NAK or other fatal review feedback does not actually remove a patch in the typical case when the patch otherwise has practical use, and update is hoped for and the patch does not break things - it just freezes the patch at the "must not go upstream yet" end of the queue. )
if we lose any patches then let us know so we can improve the protocol.
> I shall not merge this patch - it is yours. > > > Is there an active maintainer for this file? > > drivers/char/*? Very rarely maintained. git-whatchanged tells the > story on this one: no.
ok, we'll push it upstream via x86.git after some test period.
Ingo
| |