From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E47C433ED for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 20:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8616115B for ; Mon, 3 May 2021 20:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229637AbhECUEf (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2021 16:04:35 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:42650 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229497AbhECUEb (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2021 16:04:31 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E28F6115B; Mon, 3 May 2021 20:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 16:03:35 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Linus Torvalds Cc: LKML , Bhaskar Chowdhury , Cao jin , Colin Ian King , Ingo Molnar , Qiujun Huang , Wan Jiabing , Xu Wang , "Yordan Karadzhov (VMware)" Subject: Re: [ GIT PULL] tracing: Updates for 5.13 Message-ID: <20210503160335.3f3be2f2@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20210503091713.1aa7a7b7@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 3 May 2021 11:27:02 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > This is the first time I'm sending a pull request with a merge > > in it. I'm hoping my scripts did everything correctly. Might want > > to check it a bit more than usual. > > The merge looks fine. It causes the diffstat to show incorrectly, > which is normal (and generally avoided by you doing a test merge so > that you get the diffstat from the merged state - but don't send the > merge itself to me, just use it to (a) look at what conflicts there > will be and (b) get that correct diffstat for the end result). OK, makes sense. > > That said, if the only reason for the merge was one single trivial > commit, you could just have cherry-picked it instead, avoiding the > things like "oh, now it has two merge bases so 'diff' no longer has an > unambiguous result" etc. I was thinking of doing the simple cherry-pick, but I wanted to test if merges would work too, as I'm hoping that I can start pulling from others someday, and not just take patches. I figured I'd try on a trivial merge to see what breaks. > > But this is fine. If you start doing a lot of merges, I may really ask > you to then also do that test-merge for the pull request, but if it's Good to know. If I start pulling more complex merges, I'll do the test merge for the diffstat then. Thanks, -- Steve