From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759919Ab3BHEMZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:12:25 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:55656 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755363Ab3BHEMX (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:12:23 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: James Hogan Cc: linux-kernel , linux-next , Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next build conflict between modules and metag trees (LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE) In-Reply-To: <51138CFC.9000508@imgtec.com> References: <51138CFC.9000508@imgtec.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.14 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:47:49 +1030 Message-ID: <876223ijdu.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Hogan writes: > Hi Rusty, > > 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? This was my fault for taking a shortcut. I should have changed the name so the old add_taint worked still (set_taint?), then remove add_taint after the merge. But I won't be rebasing, so you should be fine to merge it. Cheers, Rusty.