On 21/10/04 11:56AM, Sean Paul wrote:
@Fernando, hopefully you can revise and post again. Thank you for your patches and your effort!
No problem :)
Just to be sure I do the right thing this time (and to better understand the process), please confirm that this is the correct sequence of events:
1. I fix the lock issue and test on my local machine.
2. I then post this new patch set (v3) rebased on top of drm-tip (instead of drm-next). This will automatically trigger tests on intel hardware (and maybe in other hardwares?)
NOTE: I originally chose drm-next because that's what is mentioned here: https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/drm/gpu/introduction.html#contribution... Maybe this doc should be updated?
3. Once reviewed and approved, someone (Sean?) merges them into "somewhere" (drm-next? drm-misc-next? drm-intel-next? How is this decided?).
4. Eventually, that other branch from the previous point is merged into drm-tip.
5. ??
6. The branch is merged into linux-next.
There must be something wrong in my description above, as it doesn't make sense to post the patch series based on "drm-tip" only to later have one of the mainteiners merge them into a different branch that will eventually be merged back into "drm-tip".
Sorry for being completely lost! Is there a document explaining how all of this works so that I can learn for the next time?
Thanks!