Hi Vineet, On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:46:24 +0530 Vineet Gupta wrote: > > On Thursday 07 February 2013 04:46 PM, James Hogan wrote: > > > > The metag architecture tree adds an add_taint(TAINT_DIE) like other > > architectures do, and the modules-next tree adds the > > LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE flag to all uses of add_taint (but obviously > > misses arch/metag since it doesn't exist yet), causing a compile error > > on metag in -next when the two are merged together. > > > > Is it okay for me to merge your commit 373d4d0 ("taint: add explicit > > flag to show whether lock dep is still OK.") in modules-next into the > > base of the metag tree and expect it not to be rebased, so that I can > > then squash the fix into the metag tree? > > > > The only commits this would include are: > > $ git log --oneline linus/master..373d4d0 > > 373d4d0 taint: add explicit flag to show whether lock dep is still OK. > > 64748a2 module: printk message when module signature fail taints kernel. > > Being in the same situation as metag (ARC Port), what's the recommended practice > here - do we simply cherry-pick these changes into our tree - or do we merge the > "other" tree on top - ofcourse with premise that "other" tree will not rebase. Merging is better, as then the commits only exist once when your tree gets merged back into Linus' tree. However, such a merge should explain why it is being done. Assuming that the thing you merge does not get rebased - which in this case, Rusty has said it won;t be. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au