Re: [PATCH] sh: mach-rsk: rsk7203: avoid using inline compound literals

On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 08:20:24AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> I apologize for my previous harsh mail, but the way these patches are being
> pushed in really puts me under actual stress. There is a second situation like
> this now where another kernel maintainer is too impatient.
> 
> On Sun, 2026-08-02 at 23:07 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Isn't that the patch that was forced into the kernel, overriding me
> > > as the maintainer of arch/sh because Linus Walleij got impatient and
> > > merged the patch into an immutable tree?
> > 
> > Yes, but incompatibility with older GCCs is not something that you'd
> > recognize on the spot, would you?
> 
> No, I wouldn't. But I would have most likely caught it as I'm building the
> kernel for my J2 board with a GCC 9.x compiler as I don't have any more
> recent GCC version for J2 at the moment.
> 
> > Also, you seem to be hung up on the notion of immutable branch. This is
> > simply a branch that creator promises not to rewind/rebase so that it
> > can be easily shared between different subsystems.
> 
> Well, it sounded to me like he wanted to make a point that there isn't going
> to be any discussion about this anymore which I really thought was not okay.

No, not at all. Again, it is just for ease of sharing and promise that
git will not generate conflicts if multiple trees pull it in.

> 
> > While we are at this, there are a few more patch series for SH that I
> > would like you to take a look at, pretty please...
> 
> Yes, absolutely. I absolutely appreciate the work, I am just asking for a
> little patience. As SuperH maintainer, one of the most important tasks the
> past weeks was to get the GCC backend moved to the new register allocator
> which is finally done now. GCC upstream is pushing to migrate all backends
> to LRA now so it meant that this had highest priority.

I totally understand, and thank you for your work.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry