On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 02:31:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The > > trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code > > changes do not get to go through any tree but the maintainer tree unless > > explicitly ACKed. > > Well, practically speaking, that would make changes like the recent > clockevents_notify() removal very difficult to carry out. Also there is > some natural cross-talk between certain subsystems.
I would not call the clockevents_notify() series "trivial". More advanced clean ups that are system wide, would be different, because you are changing the way the code works. The maintainers must be Cc'd, but sometimes I find those changes are very hard to get acks from everyone. But again, the change is a non trivial clean up and has other reasons for going in than just to make the code look nice. > > Different matter is the real value of tree-wide cleanup changes. If code is > old enough it often is better to leave it alone, even though it may be doing > things that we don't usually do nowadays. Or maybe it's a good time to rewrite that code such that everyone can understand it today ;-) > > Or things that new patches are not supposed to do, for that matter, so > I generally don't like the "checkpatch.pl error fix" changes in the old code. > I totally agree with that. But for non trivial clean ups, old code should be updated too. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
