From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:08:45 -0700 Message-ID: <50F6DE9D.5080906@wwwdotorg.org> References: <20130116141411.8fadedee54ed35dc0eddd288@canb.auug.org.au> <1358308153.32106.8.camel@gitbox> <50F62D69.8080100@nvidia.com> <1358311923.537.3.camel@gitbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: Tony Prisk , Stephen Warren , Stephen Rothwell , Colin Cross , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 01/16/2013 09:27 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Tony Prisk 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?