On Monday, October 24, 2016 8:07:16 PM CEST Deucher, Alexander wrote:
> > > > In fact, these functions are only used in the file in which they are
> > > > declared and don't need a declaration, but can be made static.
> > > > So this patch marks these functions with 'static'.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Baoyou Xie <baoyou....@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > This was already applied the last time you sent it out. Sorry if I
> > > didn't mention that previously.
> >
> > For some reason the patch hasn't made it into linux-next, so I can see
> > why Baoyou was getting confused here. Can you clarify what the timeline
> > is for the AMD DRM driver patches from between they get applied to the
> > AMD tree to when they make it into linux-next?
> >
>
> It came in late enough last cycle that it didn't make it into 4.9 (this is
> just a clean up not a critical bug fix), so I queued it for 4.10. I try to
> reply when I apply a patch, but sometimes I miss one here and there. Once
> Dave starts the drm-next tree for 4.10, it will be included in my pull
> request. Pending -next patches are in my drm-next-<kernel version>-wip tree
> until I send Dave a formal request.
>
> > I've occasionally had a hard time with DRM (and a few other subsystems)
> > with bugfix patches trying to find out whether they got lost or
> > whether they just haven't made it into -next but are in some other tree.
> >
>
> For bug fixes we usually send Dave ~weekly pull requests for each -rc as
> necessary. For -next stuff, each driver usually sends at least one,
> sometimes several pull requests for the next merge window.
Ok, got it. Thanks for the detailed reply!
Do you think it would be appropriate to include your drm-next-wip tree in
linux-next? I think this is how a lot of the multi-level maintainer
setups work as it give faster feedback about when things break.
Arnd
