[GIT PULL] arch/sh fixes for regressions in 4.6-rc1

[GIT PULL] arch/sh fixes for regressions in 4.6-rc1

[Rich Felker]

Linus,

Please pull these changes (regression fixes only) for arch/sh. They're
based on 4.6-rc1 when I did them, but apply cleanly to 4.6-rc3 and
build successfully.

Rich



The following changes since commit f55532a0c0b8bb6148f4e07853b876ef73bc69ca:

  Linux 4.6-rc1 (2016-03-26 16:03:24 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.libc.org/linux-sh tags/sh-fixes-4.6-rc1

for you to fetch changes up to ccc7d5a1cdae78ccd623540dc87e281135a1c053:

  sh: fix function signature of cpu_coregroup_mask to match pointer type (2016-03-30 00:47:49 +0000)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Fixes for two arch/sh build regressions that appeared in 4.6-rc1, one
introduced by me, and one caused by changes elsewhere.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Felker (3):
      Merge tag 'v4.6-rc1'
      sh: fix smp-shx3 build regression from removal of arch localtimer
      sh: fix function signature of cpu_coregroup_mask to match pointer type

 arch/sh/include/asm/smp.h          | 5 -----
 arch/sh/include/asm/topology.h     | 2 +-
 arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4a/smp-shx3.c | 2 --
 arch/sh/kernel/topology.c          | 4 ++--
 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] arch/sh fixes for regressions in 4.6-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>
> Please pull these changes (regression fixes only) for arch/sh. They're
> based on 4.6-rc1 when I did them, but apply cleanly to 4.6-rc3 and
> build successfully.

So I pulled this, but please don't do this:

    16b02d711f40 Merge tag 'v4.6-rc1'

there's no information in that merge commit why it would be needed,
and I cant' for the life of me see *why* it would be needed.

If you cannot explain why a merge is necessary, you should not do the
merge. It's really that simple.

So please

 - either just apply patches on top of your tree (no "let's merge
Linus' tree first")

 - or make your tree *start* at whatever base you want to use (ie
"let's check out v4.6-rc1, and apply patches on top of that base
commit")/

But do *not* start doing back-merges that aren't explained.

The back-merges make history harder to follow, and makes the graph
that gitk shows much messier. And _any_ commit that doesn't actually
explain why it is doing something is wrong, whether it's a merge or
not.

Anyway, the pull is in my tree, and I'll push it out soon, so you
don't need to do anything for this one. This complaint was purely a
"going forward" issue.

Thanks,

                 Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] arch/sh fixes for regressions in 4.6-rc1

[Rich Felker]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 01:08:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull these changes (regression fixes only) for arch/sh. They're
> > based on 4.6-rc1 when I did them, but apply cleanly to 4.6-rc3 and
> > build successfully.
> 
> So I pulled this, but please don't do this:
> 
>     16b02d711f40 Merge tag 'v4.6-rc1'
> 
> there's no information in that merge commit why it would be needed,
> and I cant' for the life of me see *why* it would be needed.
> 
> If you cannot explain why a merge is necessary, you should not do the
> merge. It's really that simple.
> 
> So please
> 
>  - either just apply patches on top of your tree (no "let's merge
> Linus' tree first")
> 
>  - or make your tree *start* at whatever base you want to use (ie
> "let's check out v4.6-rc1, and apply patches on top of that base
> commit")/
> 
> But do *not* start doing back-merges that aren't explained.

Sorry about that. My reason for starting with 4.6-rc1 was that I only
tested the changes on it, not my previous (pre-merge) version. But I
should have just rebased them on a clean branch from 4.6-rc1 rather
than merging my own, right (your option 2 above)?

> The back-merges make history harder to follow, and makes the graph
> that gitk shows much messier. And _any_ commit that doesn't actually
> explain why it is doing something is wrong, whether it's a merge or
> not.
> 
> Anyway, the pull is in my tree, and I'll push it out soon, so you
> don't need to do anything for this one. This complaint was purely a
> "going forward" issue.

Thanks!

Rich