Hi All, > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:58:22PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:30:46PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:57:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Darren Hart <dvh...@infradead.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 12:12:17PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > >> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:09:40AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > > > >> > On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > > > > From my perspective, the most direct solution would be to drop these > > > > > two patches > > > > > from the watchdog tree and let them go through the platform driver > > > > > x86 tree with > > > > > Guenter's Acked-by. If you have additional patches which depend on > > > > > these two, > > > > > then if you will provide an immutable branch we can merge, we can do > > > > > that too > > > > > (but I try to keep the number of external merges to a minimum - which > > > > > is > > > > > becoming increasingly difficult lately for some reason). > > > > > > > > Sorry for not being in doubt, I just decided that Ack from Guenter > > > > means that default case is to go through PDx86 tree without any > > > > additional agreement. > > > > > > I assumed that was the case, yes. I read through the thread and would have > > > thought the same. As Guenter is directing us to Wim, I think the > > > MAINTAINERS > > > file doesn't really capture the logistics of the watchdog maintainer > > > model, as a > > > > Now I am confused. Please apologize my lack of understanding. > > > > I am listed as "Reviewer", not "Maintainer", for watchdog drivers. > > :facepalm: > > Yes you are, I misread the get_maintainer.pl output ... somehow. > > > Please let me know how that does not capture the logistics of the watchdog > > (or any other) maintainer model, and how to better reflect that I review > > watchdog patches and Wim, as maintainer, sends them to Linus. I thought that > > is what "R:" and "M:" is for ? > > Nope, it's right, I messed up. > > > > > The only possibly unusual detail is that I maintain a branch with all > > patches > > I have reviewed. This branch is picked up by Wim and either accepted as-is > > or, > > if he does not agree with some patch, modified accordingly. This branch is > > not in linux-next and thus not part of any official maintainer model, > > but exists for convenience and to enable additional testing through 0day > > and my own test farm. > > > > > Reviewed-by from a listed maintainer wouldn't be typical unless they > > > expected > > > someone else to merge it - in this case, I suppose Guenter meant Wim and > > > not us > > > :-) > > > > > > > You are correct, "Reviewed-by:" typically is intended for Wim, as I thought > > it would be expected for a designated reviewer. I tend to use "Acked-by:" > > if I assume or expect that a patch will be picked up by a different > > maintainer, > > though I typically add a note saying that this is the case (no idea if I did > > that here). Is there some different set of tags I should use ? > > Nope, we just should have confirmed with Wim. > > > On a side note, it appears that I tagged "watchdog: iTCO_wdt: cleanup > > set/unset no_reboot_bit functions" with "Reviewed-by:", not with > > "Acked-by:". > > I noticed this as well. If Wim drops these, we'll correct that in our branch.
It makes sence to keep the patches together. I will drop the patches from the watchdog tree. Kind regards, Wim.
