On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 1:06:40 PM CEST Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 12:38:02 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:

quoted

That's a bug then.  The patch should be rejected.  You're not allowed to
break the code.

Sorry Dan, I disagree. It's not a bug. No one intend to break the code. 
How could anyone know that someone else is working simultaneously on 
some code that is not compatible with the work of the other developer?

Pavel and I worked simultaneously on code based on the current Greg's tree.

We incidentally got to know that mine breaks his.

I suppose that Greg will take Pavel's work first, because it was submitted few 
hours before mine and then will ask me to take into account Pavel's patches, 
rebase, fix and resend mine.

Each series is self contained and does not introduce bugs to the current tree.
The bugs will arise when Greg will have applied one of the two series as usually 
in a FIFO order.

There's no practical means to know who is working to what just by reading all 
the messages of the lists. Who reads all the messages before deciding to work 
on something? This issue will be solved a way or the other, I really don't think it 
is a big problem, it's unavoidable when a lot of people work on the same 
driver or subsystem.

Regards,

Fabio  

For sake of completeness I want to say that when Pavel had only submitted RFC v2
my code didn't break his. It was only with his v3 that the bug went out. But v3 was 
submitted just few hours before mine.

Fabio