From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752490AbaCOF2o (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Mar 2014 01:28:44 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:58490 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751738AbaCOF2m (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Mar 2014 01:28:42 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 6wXZqWflqJIcGuiJGuolwr8tNRVHlJ2DF9yxdH2/kw1L 1394861321 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:29:42 +0000 From: Greg KH To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Tejun Heo , Mark Brown , Stewart Smith , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree Message-ID: <20140315052942.GA30262@kroah.com> References: <1394596541.4840.70.camel@pasglop> <20140312113742.GM28112@sirena.org.uk> <1394654396.4840.94.camel@pasglop> <20140312200232.GA22332@htj.dyndns.org> <1394655292.4840.97.camel@pasglop> <20140312202102.GB22332@htj.dyndns.org> <1394671056.4840.103.camel@pasglop> <1394748895.15098.16.camel@pasglop> <20140315000343.GD5687@kroah.com> <1394852249.15098.75.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1394852249.15098.75.camel@pasglop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:57:29PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 00:03 +0000, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:55AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 11:37 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > > It's a series of rather complex patches. I really don't think > > > > > duplicating them is a good idea. We can either resurrect the old API > > > > > to kill it again or set up a merge branch which I don't think is too > > > > > unusual in situations like this. > > > > > > > > Right, a topic branch that gets merged in both driver-core-next and > > > > powerpc-next. > > > > > > Just want to make sure we agree ... ie, the offending commit is already > > > in powerpc-next on my side and I can't really back it out (I could > > > revert it though). > > > > You can pull in driver-core-next into your tree if you want, it's not > > going to be reverted, and will be sent to Linus for 3.15-rc1, so you can > > base your work on it and fix up the api usage in your tree that way. > > It's messy. Stephen really doesn't like if we pull each other trees like > that unless they are topic branches. He also doesn't like when we keep > pulling Linus in. I only pull Linus in after a -rc in which I have merged patches with him for that "topic". Otherwise I end up with merge issues, and for testing reasons, I want those fixes from Linus and from me, in order to keep people from hitting the same already-fixes issues. > For example I purposefully kept powerpc -next on top of rc2. You seem to > regularly merge subsequent rc's into driver-core-next. So by pulling > your tree I would bring a whole lot of stuff on top of mine, which is > fine by git but makes histories more complicated and annoys Stephen. > > I might still do it this time around, because the other solution for me > is revert + re-apply with fixups on top of a separate branch itself > derived from driver-core-next and send multiple pull requests to Linus, > and that's messy too. The question is which one is more :-) Just take my tree, it's not a big deal, I'll merge first with Linus if you want and then everything is simple. thanks, greg k-h-