From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751369Ab3HSVJD (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:09:03 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]:42379 "EHLO mail-qa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751266Ab3HSVJA (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:09:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1000:1b02:6e3b:e5ff:fe16:f1aa] In-Reply-To: <20130819205736.GA13964@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <20130819160537.1eeb0a9ebc269def138e016b@canb.auug.org.au> <20130819205736.GA13964@titan.lakedaemon.net> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:09:00 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mvebu tree with the arm-soc tree From: Olof Johansson To: Jason Cooper Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Lunn , Gregory Clement , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org it's this commit: commit 89602312c5755c87a5ca6ba8ef6b0fce9d510951 Merge: a0cec78 f23afe2 Author: Jason Cooper AuthorDate: Wed Aug 14 18:55:13 2013 +0000 Commit: Jason Cooper CommitDate: Wed Aug 14 18:55:13 2013 +0000 Merge remote-tracking branch 'arm-soc/for-next' into mvebu/drivers You merged back the for-next branch from arm-soc into your tree. Big no-no. This brings up the subject of subplatform trees and conflicts and -next. I wonder if we should ask Stephen to put all these trees in a category where if they have any substantial conflicts or weirdness like this, that he just drops it for the current -next build instead of spending effort on them. That would give us on arm-soc a chance to sort out things and even rebase patches if needed without causing a lot of extra work for sfr. -Olof On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:05:37PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Today's linux-next merge of the mvebu tree got conflicts in various files >> between merges and commits in the arm-soc tree and merges in the mvebu >> tree. > > I'm afraid I'm a bit lost... > >> These merges/commits in the mvebu tree appear to be from a previous >> version of the arm-soc tree that the mvebu tree has been rebased upon. >> Please don't do that - the arm-soc tree as a whole is not stable. > > I didn't do anything different from the other times I built for-next. > Could you give me a specific example when you build linux-next again? > I'll certainly try to avoid it in the future, but it'll be easier if I > know what 'it' is. ;-) > > I'll not change for-next today, and we'll see how it goes. > > thx, > > Jason. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mvebu tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:09:00 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20130819160537.1eeb0a9ebc269def138e016b@canb.auug.org.au> <20130819205736.GA13964@titan.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mail-qa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47]:42611 "EHLO mail-qa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751309Ab3HSVJA (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:09:00 -0400 Received: by mail-qa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id o19so2108297qap.13 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:09:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130819205736.GA13964@titan.lakedaemon.net> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jason Cooper Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Lunn , Gregory Clement , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann it's this commit: commit 89602312c5755c87a5ca6ba8ef6b0fce9d510951 Merge: a0cec78 f23afe2 Author: Jason Cooper AuthorDate: Wed Aug 14 18:55:13 2013 +0000 Commit: Jason Cooper CommitDate: Wed Aug 14 18:55:13 2013 +0000 Merge remote-tracking branch 'arm-soc/for-next' into mvebu/drivers You merged back the for-next branch from arm-soc into your tree. Big no-no. This brings up the subject of subplatform trees and conflicts and -next. I wonder if we should ask Stephen to put all these trees in a category where if they have any substantial conflicts or weirdness like this, that he just drops it for the current -next build instead of spending effort on them. That would give us on arm-soc a chance to sort out things and even rebase patches if needed without causing a lot of extra work for sfr. -Olof On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:05:37PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Today's linux-next merge of the mvebu tree got conflicts in various files >> between merges and commits in the arm-soc tree and merges in the mvebu >> tree. > > I'm afraid I'm a bit lost... > >> These merges/commits in the mvebu tree appear to be from a previous >> version of the arm-soc tree that the mvebu tree has been rebased upon. >> Please don't do that - the arm-soc tree as a whole is not stable. > > I didn't do anything different from the other times I built for-next. > Could you give me a specific example when you build linux-next again? > I'll certainly try to avoid it in the future, but it'll be easier if I > know what 'it' is. ;-) > > I'll not change for-next today, and we'll see how it goes. > > thx, > > Jason. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:09:00 -0700 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the mvebu tree with the arm-soc tree In-Reply-To: <20130819205736.GA13964@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <20130819160537.1eeb0a9ebc269def138e016b@canb.auug.org.au> <20130819205736.GA13964@titan.lakedaemon.net> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org it's this commit: commit 89602312c5755c87a5ca6ba8ef6b0fce9d510951 Merge: a0cec78 f23afe2 Author: Jason Cooper AuthorDate: Wed Aug 14 18:55:13 2013 +0000 Commit: Jason Cooper CommitDate: Wed Aug 14 18:55:13 2013 +0000 Merge remote-tracking branch 'arm-soc/for-next' into mvebu/drivers You merged back the for-next branch from arm-soc into your tree. Big no-no. This brings up the subject of subplatform trees and conflicts and -next. I wonder if we should ask Stephen to put all these trees in a category where if they have any substantial conflicts or weirdness like this, that he just drops it for the current -next build instead of spending effort on them. That would give us on arm-soc a chance to sort out things and even rebase patches if needed without causing a lot of extra work for sfr. -Olof On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:05:37PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Today's linux-next merge of the mvebu tree got conflicts in various files >> between merges and commits in the arm-soc tree and merges in the mvebu >> tree. > > I'm afraid I'm a bit lost... > >> These merges/commits in the mvebu tree appear to be from a previous >> version of the arm-soc tree that the mvebu tree has been rebased upon. >> Please don't do that - the arm-soc tree as a whole is not stable. > > I didn't do anything different from the other times I built for-next. > Could you give me a specific example when you build linux-next again? > I'll certainly try to avoid it in the future, but it'll be easier if I > know what 'it' is. ;-) > > I'll not change for-next today, and we'll see how it goes. > > thx, > > Jason.