Messages in this thread | | | From | Ohad Ben-Cohen <> | Date | Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:45:19 +0200 | Subject | Re: Adding remoteproc/rpmsg to linux-next |
| |
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > Either way works for me, too. Right now, I would tend to let you send it > to Linus directly because I haven't looked at the latest versions of the > code for some time.
Directly to Linus it is then.
> While I generally trust you to do the right thing > there, I'm not 100% comfortable to vouch for it in the way that an Ack > or pull would imply without doing a more detailed review of the latest > code.
Sure, I fully understand.
> I know that I promised you that review, but haven't gotten to it, sorry. > I've done a 5 minute review now and it absolutely looks good to go in > as far as I can tell, so I certainly don't object to you sending it > to Linus for 3.3.
Thanks.
> If you think you need more Acks or if there are other > reasons to have it go through arm-soc, please tell me and I'll try harder > to find the time for a proper review.
I do have explicit Acks on the changes to other sub-systems, though ideally I'd be happy to have some explicit Acks on the generic code too.
But I hope this should be fine. Let's try to proceed this way and see how it goes (maybe I should just tell Linus that despite the lack of explicit Acks to some of the patches, people do think this is good-to-go).
Thanks! Ohad.
| |