From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759806Ab2CMIgr (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:36:47 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43917 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759771Ab2CMIgn (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:36:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:36:30 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Russell King Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20120313083630.GA10131@elte.hu> References: <20120313110840.7b444deb6b1bb902c15f3cdf@canb.auug.org.au> <20120313061622.GA24357@elte.hu> <20120313083310.GA27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313083310.GA27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:16:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in > > > kernel/sched/core.c between commit 8c79a045fd59 ("sched/events: Revert > > > trace_sched_stat_sleeptime()") from Linus' tree and commit 1cf00341547a > > > ("sched: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler hook") > > > from the arm tree. > > > > > > Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as > > > necessary. > > > > This commit seems simple enough and has PeterZ's ack, but if > > there are more scheduler patches coming in this area then > > please send it to the scheduler tree first: we can create a > > pullable, stable topic branch for it which the ARM tree can > > then use. > > > > That approach would also avoid conflicts as a side effect. > > Please check your mailbox: I'm aware of that old thread, I'd just prefer to hear about your plans patching the scheduler *before* you commit it to linux-next ;-) Please make sure none of these scheduler patches go to the ARM tree without a proper Git space solution that involves the scheduler folks. Thanks, Ingo