Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 01/16/2013 09:27 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Tony Prisk <linux@prisktech.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 21:32 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 01/15/2013 08:49 PM, Tony Prisk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:14 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the tegra tree got a conflict in
>>>>> drivers/clocksource/Makefile between commit ff7ec345f0ec ("timer: vt8500:
>>>>> Move timer code to drivers/clocksource") from the arm-soc tree and commit
>>>>> ac0fd9eca3ba ("ARM: tegra: move timer.c to drivers/clocksource/") from
>>>>> the tegra tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>>>>> is required).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about everyone else, but I feel the preference should be to
>>>> keep things alphabetized where possible to help avoid with merge
>>>> conflicts later on. This is always a problem when we start tacking
>>>> things on the end of lists.
>>>>
>>>> I realise this Kconfig is not alphabetized anyway, but it's never too
>>>> early to start on the 'right' path.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a good idea, but the issue is: When to do the initial sort
>>> so it doesn't conflict with all the adds in a kernel cycle... Post and
>>> immediately commit a new patch near the end of the merge window?
>>
>> Given that the maintainer can quite safely do the patch (sorry
>> maintainers), I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done at the
>> point where they stop accepting patches for the merge-window. Once the
>> patches are stopped, sort the list in one last patch.

That only works well if the one maintainer is the only person taking
patches for the drivers/clocksource tree. It might be true that the "one
maintainer" here ends up being arm-soc in this kernel cycle though?

>> It makes sense to get it done in this window if possible as the Kconfig
>> will only get bigger as time goes on, making sorting it more time
>> consuming.
> 
> Actually, Russell wen through and reordered these not long ago, if I
> remember correctly. The current ordering is the same as in the
> structure definition, and should be kept that way.

I think this is talking about Makefile entries rather than struct
definitions?