On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 20:57:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 28 February 2012, Nori, Sekhar wrote: > > I guess the cleanest way to do that would have been to let > > these patches go through my tree with appropriate maintainer > > acks (but that obviously didn't happen - will try and fix > > that for future). Per my understanding, it is encouraged that > > a patch should get applied only through one tree, so I was > > reluctant to apply them to any of the branches I send to you > > after they were already in linux-next through other trees. > > That is correct, we generally try to avoid duplicating commits > but instead use branches that are based on a common history > containing whatever is needed in multiple places. > > Note that the patch I applied does not duplicate the ones that > went into the other trees, it recreates dummy header files > instead and needs to be reverted at some point in the future > when everything has been merged.
Right. Thanks for taking care of this. Will send a revert once the dependencies are upstream. Thanks, Sekhar _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
