linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: Emma Mobile GPIO driver V2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOesGMh1VQ5BAybLEzVLqL2cOQe2CJ8CgbK+5-R4sH4iG0Kvog@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2012 18:18:39 -0700
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
	arnd@...db.de, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
	lethal@...ux-sh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Emma Mobile GPIO driver V2

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:54:16 -0700, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, May 17, 2012, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Do you guys have any preferences how to merge this?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can I include it together with the EMEV2 SoC bits perhaps? That may be
>> >> >> > easy so we can keep track of the platform data header file dependency.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For ux500 I made a special "gpio and pins" branch and sent through ARM SoC.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem is we have a patch depending on the $subject one in the EMEV2
>> >> > series and it would be better to keep them both together if that's not
>> >> > a big deal.
>> >>
>> >> Dependencies are fine, as long as they are not circular. You can
>> >> either pull in the gpio/pins branch into the EMEV2 branch, or base it
>> >> on it.
>> >
>> > I guess I'll try to merge the gpio/pins into the EMEV2 branch.
>>
>> By the way, I should have mentioned that if the dependencies are only
>> for building and not for context when applying patches, then it's
>> sufficient to let us know in the pull request so we merge the branches
>> in the right order when sending to Linus (so we maintain
>> bisectability).
>
> Really?  I don't think that works. The actually commit point will
> always be unbuildable regardless of the merge order in mainline.  If
> there is a dependency then the dependency must be merged into the
> working branch before applying the commit.

Not if the prerequisite commit sits in a branch that is merged before
the dependent commit.

A git bisect should never end up in a situation where the second
commit is included but the first is not. Either that, or I have
completely misunderstood how it works.

Of course, this assumes that the dependency is one-way, and not mutual.

-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/