All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:53:41 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160912125341.0596ed9f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160912113224.792b24f0@canb.auug.org.au>

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:32:24 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Michal,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kbuild tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0f60a8efe400 ("mm: Implement stack frame object validation")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commits:
> 
>   a5967db9af51 ("kbuild: allow architectures to use thin archives instead of ld -r")
>   b67067f1176d ("kbuild: allow archs to select link dead code/data elimination")
> 
> from the kbuild tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 

Thanks Stephen, this should be a trivial conflict. Also you wrote one
of the patches :)

Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering
they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will
have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these
kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them.

Thanks,
Nick

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:53:41 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160912125341.0596ed9f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160912113224.792b24f0@canb.auug.org.au>

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:32:24 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Michal,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kbuild tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0f60a8efe400 ("mm: Implement stack frame object validation")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commits:
> 
>   a5967db9af51 ("kbuild: allow architectures to use thin archives instead of ld -r")
>   b67067f1176d ("kbuild: allow archs to select link dead code/data elimination")
> 
> from the kbuild tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 

Thanks Stephen, this should be a trivial conflict. Also you wrote one
of the patches :)

Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering
they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will
have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these
kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them.

Thanks,
Nick

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-12  2:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-12  1:32 linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell
2016-09-12  2:53 ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2016-09-12  2:53   ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-09-12  9:03   ` Michal Marek
2016-09-12 23:39     ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-09-13  4:02       ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-09-13  4:09         ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-09-13  7:48         ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-13  9:12           ` Nicholas Piggin
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-10-06 18:16 Stephen Rothwell
2022-05-27  0:08 Stephen Rothwell
2022-04-03 22:09 Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-26 23:02 Stephen Rothwell
2021-02-22 22:24 Stephen Rothwell
2020-06-04 22:59 Stephen Rothwell
2019-05-01 22:46 Stephen Rothwell
2017-05-02 22:14 Stephen Rothwell
2016-07-28  1:50 Stephen Rothwell
2015-07-02  0:30 Stephen Rothwell
2015-07-02  6:47 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-07-02  7:17   ` Michal Marek
2015-07-02  9:18     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-07-02 19:53       ` Michal Marek
2015-07-03 11:56         ` Geert Uytterhoeven

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160912125341.0596ed9f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com \
    --to=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.