From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:57:29 +1100 Message-ID: <1394852249.15098.75.camel@pasglop> References: <20140312005152.9ac4063f65dbd233f5d50b4d@kernel.org> <20140312015021.GC10106@kroah.com> <1394596541.4840.70.camel@pasglop> <20140312113742.GM28112@sirena.org.uk> <1394654396.4840.94.camel@pasglop> <20140312200232.GA22332@htj.dyndns.org> <1394655292.4840.97.camel@pasglop> <20140312202102.GB22332@htj.dyndns.org> <1394671056.4840.103.camel@pasglop> <1394748895.15098.16.camel@pasglop> <20140315000343.GD5687@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:51612 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754238AbaCOC5t (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 22:57:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140315000343.GD5687@kroah.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Greg KH Cc: Tejun Heo , Mark Brown , Stewart Smith , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 00:03 +0000, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:55AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 11:37 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > It's a series of rather complex patches. I really don't think > > > > duplicating them is a good idea. We can either resurrect the old API > > > > to kill it again or set up a merge branch which I don't think is too > > > > unusual in situations like this. > > > > > > Right, a topic branch that gets merged in both driver-core-next and > > > powerpc-next. > > > > Just want to make sure we agree ... ie, the offending commit is already > > in powerpc-next on my side and I can't really back it out (I could > > revert it though). > > You can pull in driver-core-next into your tree if you want, it's not > going to be reverted, and will be sent to Linus for 3.15-rc1, so you can > base your work on it and fix up the api usage in your tree that way. It's messy. Stephen really doesn't like if we pull each other trees like that unless they are topic branches. He also doesn't like when we keep pulling Linus in. For example I purposefully kept powerpc -next on top of rc2. You seem to regularly merge subsequent rc's into driver-core-next. So by pulling your tree I would bring a whole lot of stuff on top of mine, which is fine by git but makes histories more complicated and annoys Stephen. I might still do it this time around, because the other solution for me is revert + re-apply with fixups on top of a separate branch itself derived from driver-core-next and send multiple pull requests to Linus, and that's messy too. The question is which one is more :-) Cheers, Ben. > thanks, > > greg k-h > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/