From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751986AbcILXjv (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:39:51 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:44186 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750747AbcILXjt (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:39:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:39:45 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Michal Marek Cc: Nicholas Piggin , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20160913093945.521a28b4@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: References: <20160912113224.792b24f0@canb.auug.org.au> <20160912125341.0596ed9f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Michal, On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:03:08 +0200 Michal Marek wrote: > > On 2016-09-12 04:53, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering > > they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will > > have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these > > kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them. > > I think it makes sense to merge the kbuild changes via kbuild.git, even > if they are unused and untested. Any follow-up fixes required to enable > the first architecture can go through the respective architecture tree. > Does that sound OK? And if you guarantee not to rebase the kbuild tree (or at least the subset containing these patches), then each of the architecture trees can just merge your tree (or a tag?) and then implement any necessary arch dependent changes. I fixes are necessary, they can also be merged into the architecture trees. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell