linux-next: manual merge of the async_tx tree with the arm tree
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ieee1394 tree
Next: ipmi: Fix memleaking for add_smi when duplicating happen
From: Linus Walleij on 28 Jul 2010 20:00 2010/7/28 Russell King <rmk(a)arm.linux.org.uk>: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:11:19AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >> > Hi Dan, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the async_tx tree got a conflict in >> > arch/arm/mach-ux500/devices-db8500.c between commit >> > 6055930cba8fdb2c8855b32bae262aaf69c1fdb4 ("ARM: 6266/1: ux500: add >> > separate irq lists for DB8500 and DB5500") from the arm tree and commit >> > 5aa12e8c9c57741606e52f43e62ab1b9dc8e9dcc ("DMAENGINE: ste_dma40: arch >> > updates for LCLA and LCPA") from the async_tx tree. >> > >> > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. >> > -- >> >> Thanks Stephen! >> >> Russell, the dma40 driver updates and related arch fixups have been >> sitting in next for a month, I'd prefer not to lose this baseline. >> Assuming this change is brand new any chance the dma40 specific part >> of this patch can be peeled off and sent through my tree, or are you >> in a similar "can't/won't" rebase position? > > I don't see how the change in the ARM tree could be reasonably split. > Up to Rabin/Linus to decide what they want to do about this. Actually the way subsystem maintainers fix up conflicts and resolve them is a bit of opaque to me, I'd be happy to help in any way possible. Isn't it so that whoever hits the merge window first goes in and the other apply Stephens patch before issuing any pull request and be done with it? That was my na�ve idea about these things... Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Dan Williams on 3 Aug 2010 04:10
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/7/28 Russell King <rmk(a)arm.linux.org.uk>: >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:11:19AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: >>> > Hi Dan, >>> > >>> > Today's linux-next merge of the async_tx tree got a conflict in >>> > arch/arm/mach-ux500/devices-db8500.c between commit >>> > 6055930cba8fdb2c8855b32bae262aaf69c1fdb4 ("ARM: 6266/1: ux500: add >>> > separate irq lists for DB8500 and DB5500") from the arm tree and commit >>> > 5aa12e8c9c57741606e52f43e62ab1b9dc8e9dcc ("DMAENGINE: ste_dma40: arch >>> > updates for LCLA and LCPA") from the async_tx tree. >>> > >>> > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. >>> > -- >>> >>> Thanks Stephen! >>> >>> Russell, the dma40 driver updates and related arch fixups have been >>> sitting in next for a month, I'd prefer not to lose this baseline. >>> Assuming this change is brand new any chance the dma40 specific part >>> of this patch can be peeled off and sent through my tree, or are you >>> in a similar "can't/won't" rebase position? >> >> I don't see how the change in the ARM tree could be reasonably split. >> Up to Rabin/Linus to decide what they want to do about this. > > Actually the way subsystem maintainers fix up conflicts and resolve them > is a bit of opaque to me, I'd be happy to help in any way possible. > > Isn't it so that whoever hits the merge window first goes in and the > other apply Stephens patch before issuing any pull request and be > done with it? That was my na�ve idea about these things... > It's a bag of dirty choices: 1/ Do nothing: LinusT will need to fix up the conflict in the same way that Stephen has done. 2/ Drop the new patch from the ARM tree as the conflict could have been seen ahead of time and send it later in the merge window after async_tx.git has been merged, but this might involve rebasing the ARM tree. 3/ Back merge the ARM tree after it goes upstream so the conflict is resolved before Linus pulls async_tx.git, but this makes the history ugly 4/ Rewind the async_tx.git tree so we at least keep the same branch point, but this still screws up people who use git pull to track async_tx.git. Option 1 is probably the lesser evil as Linus has said he does not mind the occasional conflict, but it still feels wrong to push any pain upstream when the conflict could have been seen ahead of time. -- Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |