Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 24

From: Mark Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:24:22 +0100

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:16:02AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thierry Reding

> > Yeah, I saw the devm_gpio_request_one() errors too. They happened for 3
> > boards on ARM I think. Must have forgotten to update the summary email.
> > I'll see if I can come up with a patch to fix the GPIO related build
> > failures, or at least report it to LinusW or Alexandre.

> Hmm.

> Please don't apply fixes like these directly to your tree, keep the
> broken parts (or drop the tree that introduced it). It makes the
> process of getting the fixes in where they really have to go much more
> error prone, since there's no way to track whether they have landed in
> the right place yet or not.

The rule I was applying (which I think is the same as Stephen applies)
is that I'd fix anything that was definitely the result of a merge issue
(like the build failure in misc due to a sysfs API change in the sysfs
tree) but not anything that was just plain broken in the tree in
isolation.