Re: [PATCH 59/73] drivers/gpio: delete non-required instances of include <linux/init.h>

[Re: [PATCH 59/73] drivers/gpio: delete non-required instances of include <linux/init.h>] On 24/01/2014 (Fri 09:58) Stephen Rothwell wrote:

Hi Linus,

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:12:43 +0100 Linus Walleij [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Paul Gortmaker [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

None of these files are actually using any __init type directives
and hence don't need to include <linux/init.h>.  Most are just a
left over from __devinit and __cpuinit removal, or simply due to
code getting copied from one driver to the next.

Cc: Linus Walleij <redacted>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <redacted>
Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <redacted>

Patch applied for v3.15.

Yet that patch is in linux-next today.  And just 2 days ago I mailed out this request (as I do during each merge window):

"Please do not add any code intended for v3.15 to your linux-next included
trees until after v3.14-rc1 has been released."

I have no problem with that particular patch being sent to Linus during
this merge window (in fact Paul intends to send whatever is left of the
series at the end of the merge window), but it makes me wonder about the
other commits that you have added to the gpio tree (and the pinctrl tree)
today.  Are they intended for this merge window or v3.15?

For what it is worth, I'm not removing any patches from my series file
until they explicitly conflict and/or become redundant.  If a maintainer
says they are adding the patch, I add a comment in the series file, but
I don't remove them until I see them come into next via another branch,
and/or sfr reports a conflict/redundancy.

Thanks,
Paul.
--

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au