linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree

[olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson)]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Tony Prisk <linux@prisktech.co.nz> 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.
>
> 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.


-Olof