From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756542Ab3APRfO (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:35:14 -0500 Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]:48478 "EHLO mail-ie0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752798Ab3APRfL (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:35:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [173.13.129.225] In-Reply-To: <50F6DE9D.5080906@wwwdotorg.org> References: <20130116141411.8fadedee54ed35dc0eddd288@canb.auug.org.au> <1358308153.32106.8.camel@gitbox> <50F62D69.8080100@nvidia.com> <1358311923.537.3.camel@gitbox> <50F6DE9D.5080906@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:35:10 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree From: Olof Johansson To: Stephen Warren Cc: Tony Prisk , Stephen Warren , Stephen Rothwell , Colin Cross , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 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 On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 01/16/2013 09:27 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Tony Prisk wrote: >>> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 21:32 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> On 01/15/2013 08:49 PM, Tony Prisk wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:14 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the tegra tree got a conflict in >>>>>> drivers/clocksource/Makefile between commit ff7ec345f0ec ("timer: vt8500: >>>>>> Move timer code to drivers/clocksource") from the arm-soc tree and commit >>>>>> ac0fd9eca3ba ("ARM: tegra: move timer.c to drivers/clocksource/") from >>>>>> the tegra tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action >>>>>> is required). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't know about everyone else, but I feel the preference should be to >>>>> keep things alphabetized where possible to help avoid with merge >>>>> conflicts later on. This is always a problem when we start tacking >>>>> things on the end of lists. >>>>> >>>>> I realise this Kconfig is not alphabetized anyway, but it's never too >>>>> early to start on the 'right' path. >>>> >>>> Sounds like a good idea, but the issue is: When to do the initial sort >>>> so it doesn't conflict with all the adds in a kernel cycle... Post and >>>> immediately commit a new patch near the end of the merge window? >>> >>> Given that the maintainer can quite safely do the patch (sorry >>> maintainers), I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done at the >>> point where they stop accepting patches for the merge-window. Once the >>> patches are stopped, sort the list in one last patch. > > That only works well if the one maintainer is the only person taking > patches for the drivers/clocksource tree. It might be true that the "one > maintainer" here ends up being arm-soc in this kernel cycle though? I'll send a patch to Linus at the end of the merge window, no need to do it through a merge -- that way it's trivial for him to fixup a merge conflict (and he can refuse to take it if he feels it's silly). >>> It makes sense to get it done in this window if possible as the Kconfig >>> will only get bigger as time goes on, making sorting it more time >>> consuming. >> >> Actually, Russell wen through and reordered these not long ago, if I >> remember correctly. The current ordering is the same as in the >> structure definition, and should be kept that way. > > I think this is talking about Makefile entries rather than struct > definitions? Ah, yes, they should be sorted. But definitely not right now since it'll just make things worse. -Olof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:35:10 -0800 Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree In-Reply-To: <50F6DE9D.5080906@wwwdotorg.org> References: <20130116141411.8fadedee54ed35dc0eddd288@canb.auug.org.au> <1358308153.32106.8.camel@gitbox> <50F62D69.8080100@nvidia.com> <1358311923.537.3.camel@gitbox> <50F6DE9D.5080906@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 01/16/2013 09:27 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Tony Prisk wrote: >>> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 21:32 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> On 01/15/2013 08:49 PM, Tony Prisk wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:14 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the tegra tree got a conflict in >>>>>> drivers/clocksource/Makefile between commit ff7ec345f0ec ("timer: vt8500: >>>>>> Move timer code to drivers/clocksource") from the arm-soc tree and commit >>>>>> ac0fd9eca3ba ("ARM: tegra: move timer.c to drivers/clocksource/") from >>>>>> the tegra tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action >>>>>> is required). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't know about everyone else, but I feel the preference should be to >>>>> keep things alphabetized where possible to help avoid with merge >>>>> conflicts later on. This is always a problem when we start tacking >>>>> things on the end of lists. >>>>> >>>>> I realise this Kconfig is not alphabetized anyway, but it's never too >>>>> early to start on the 'right' path. >>>> >>>> Sounds like a good idea, but the issue is: When to do the initial sort >>>> so it doesn't conflict with all the adds in a kernel cycle... Post and >>>> immediately commit a new patch near the end of the merge window? >>> >>> Given that the maintainer can quite safely do the patch (sorry >>> maintainers), I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done at the >>> point where they stop accepting patches for the merge-window. Once the >>> patches are stopped, sort the list in one last patch. > > That only works well if the one maintainer is the only person taking > patches for the drivers/clocksource tree. It might be true that the "one > maintainer" here ends up being arm-soc in this kernel cycle though? I'll send a patch to Linus at the end of the merge window, no need to do it through a merge -- that way it's trivial for him to fixup a merge conflict (and he can refuse to take it if he feels it's silly). >>> It makes sense to get it done in this window if possible as the Kconfig >>> will only get bigger as time goes on, making sorting it more time >>> consuming. >> >> Actually, Russell wen through and reordered these not long ago, if I >> remember correctly. The current ordering is the same as in the >> structure definition, and should be kept that way. > > I think this is talking about Makefile entries rather than struct > definitions? Ah, yes, they should be sorted. But definitely not right now since it'll just make things worse. -Olof