On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 15:50 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Sat 2018-04-07 17:26:40, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > This change collides with my patch series. Can you elaborate what > > your > > thoughts are about my patches? Are you going incorporate them to > > your > > series? Should I send them independently? > > Good question. I think that the best solution will be that I go > over your patchset and just add all valid ones into printk.git > for-4.18. I think about 1-7 and 9 that can go as is before your changes. And patch 8 postpone > Then I will base v5 of this patchset on top of it. I'm going for vacation tomorrow. Can you just take them into your series or apply to your tree? > I should have done this earlier. But I did not expect that long > way for the access-check stuff. We originally planned to > do the access check first, see > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Yeah, I didn't consider that your one patch became a series... > But the access check patchset still need some love, so it makes > sense to switch the order. I agree. -- Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy
