[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18607840.Is41JcgqAR@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:07:19 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] PCI, ACPI, x86: Reserve fw allocated resource for hot-add root bus
On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 05:34:32 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:01:39 AM Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> >> the reason why we need to change those codes for x86, we want to make it support
> >> >> pci root bus hotplug. So it would be reasonable for us to align other
> >> >> platform to x86
> >> >> changes after pci root bus hotplug change is completely done.
> >> >
> >> > OK, I opened https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52531 as a
> >> > way to keep track of this consistency issue and merged
> >> > pci/yinghai-survey-resources to my -next branch.
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot. will send other pci root bus hotplug out.
> >>
> >> question: now Rafael's tree has acpi-scan branch and it touches pci-root.c.
> >>
> >> so is it ok for me to base patches on your pci/next and his pm/acpi-scan?
> >> how?
> >> can you two have some arrangement like you pulling Rafael's branch?
> >
> > My acpi-scan branch is not going to be rebased going forward, so it can be
> > pulled from safely if that helps.
>
> I'm happy to do that, but it is outside the scope of my limited git
> experience. My guess is that I should do this (doing the pull into a
> branch which I later merge into my -next branch):
>
> $ git checkout -b pci/yinghai-survey-resources+acpi-scan
> pci/yinghai-survey-resources
> $ git pull --no-ff --log
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git
> acpi-scan
> $ vi drivers/acpi/pci_root.c # resolve conflicts
> $ git add drivers/acpi/pci_root.c
> $ git commit
>
> $ git checkout next
> $ git merge --no-ff --log pci/yinghai-survey-resources+acpi-scan
>
> Is that reasonable?
Yes, it looks reasonable.
> This won't cause issues when both Rafael and I ask Linus to pull from our
> trees later?
No, it won't, as long as I don't rebase the original acpi-scan branch (which
I'm not going to do) and you don't rebase your
pci/yinghai-survey-resources+acpi-scan branch going forward.
The pull makes your tree contain the same commits (i.e. commit IDs along with
the data) that are in my acpi-scan branch, so when Linus merges them together,
git will notice that the commits are the same.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists