From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Triplett Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:19:18 -0800 Message-ID: <20131109001917.GA25715@jtriplet-mobl1> References: <20131108184805.ec16e3b5cc08834cb5d4f812@canb.auug.org.au> <20131108185812.GB11311@jtriplet-mobl1> <20131109102058.4edc71a4a367d3d6c92844aa@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:36296 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751087Ab3KIAT3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:19:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131109102058.4edc71a4a367d3d6c92844aa@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:20:58AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:58:12 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > Won't splitting the Makefile change into a separate commit break > > bisection, in particular if you have the changes adding inlines but you > > also compile in lglock.o? Shouldn't this be squashed into the merge > > itself, keeping the kernel/Makefile section of my original patch? > > Actually it is not a problem because that fix patch was applied to the > merge commit between the part of Andrew's tree that depends only on > Linus' tree and the rest of linux-next. So each side of the merge is ok > and the merge commit itself fixes up the conflict. > > I just split it this way for my work flow purposes. Ah, I see. That wasn't obvious to me from your previous mail explaining your fix. :) - Josh Triplett