From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753516AbdEEUCl (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2017 16:02:41 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169]:36503 "EHLO mail-io0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284AbdEEUBf (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 May 2017 16:01:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170505163846.GA31211@kroah.com> References: <20170505001808.GA16769@kroah.com> <1494000006.2399.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170505163846.GA31211@kroah.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 13:01:34 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QU9EhiGbZQqLskxtdj8UDg1Vk2M Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Char/Misc driver patches for 4.12-rc1 To: Greg KH Cc: James Bottomley , Jarkko Sakkinen , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 09:00:06AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 19:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > >> > Ugh. I'm not particularly happy with the conflicts I got and my >> > resolutions there-of. >> >> Yes, we really should have done this via a postmerge tree. We've had >> so little cause to use them recently, I suspect everyone's forgotten >> how. > > Huh? You could have pulled in my tree into this one, or I could have > done that for you, my trees are not rebased at all, and they get used > this way every other release or so for this very reason. I actually would have preferred to not get any early merges, but what I was unhappy about is that I also didn't really get any heads-up about the cdev_device_add() conflict. I did get notified about the other conflict (thanks, James), but somehow the cdev_device_add() changes didn't cause the same kind of notification. So my unhappiness is not about me having to resolve things (I'm happy to do that) but about how apparently -next failed to notice that part of my merge resolution. Or maybe it was noticed in -next, but then the information about it got lost. I prefer doing merge resolutions myself, but I *also* really really prefer the two sides of the conflict having been more aware of the clash. Linus