On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:04:45PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 07:55:23PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:32:36PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

Applied to irqchip/urgent with Nico's Ack.

Interesting, so I'm discussing this patch, and it gets applied anyway...
yes, that's great.

Quoting Nico:

"Of course it would be good to clarify things wrt Russell's remark
independently from this patch."

I took 'independently' to mean "This patch is ok, *and* we need to
address Russell's concerns in a follow-up patch."

Nico's Reviewed-by with that comment was sent August 13th.  The most
recent activity on this thread was also August 13th.  After four days, I
reasoned there were no objections to his comment.

Well... I mentioned this patch is a nice cleanup independently of the 
reason why it was created in the first place.

Ah, fair enough.

Maybe that shouldn't be sorted as "urgent" in that case, especially
when the code having problem with the current state of things is
living out of mainline.

hmmm, yes.  I've been grappling with the semantics of '/urgent' vice
'/fixes'.  With mvebu, /fixes is the branch for all changes needing to go
into the current -rcX cycle.  For irqchip, Thomas suggested /urgent for
the equivalent branch.  To me, they serve the same purpose.
Unfortunately, I occasionally hear "Well, it's not _urgent_ ...".  I
suppose I'll put up with it for one more cycle and then change it to
/fixes. :)

wrt this patch, I need to drop it anyway.  I was a bit rusty (it's been
a few weeks) and forgot to add the Cc -stable and Fixes: tags.  I do
agree, though, it's certainly not urgent.

As Russell has raised more issues with this patch as well, I'll hold off
on re-applying until I see a new version.  Hopefully it'll meet with
everyones approval.

thx,

Jason.