linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:35:10 -0800
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 01/16/2013 09:27 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 21:32 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 01/15/2013 08:49 PM, Tony Prisk wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:14 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the tegra tree got a conflict in
>>>>>> drivers/clocksource/Makefile between commit ff7ec345f0ec ("timer: vt8500:
>>>>>> Move timer code to drivers/clocksource") from the arm-soc tree and commit
>>>>>> ac0fd9eca3ba ("ARM: tegra: move timer.c to drivers/clocksource/") from
>>>>>> the tegra tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>>>>>> is required).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know about everyone else, but I feel the preference should be to
>>>>> keep things alphabetized where possible to help avoid with merge
>>>>> conflicts later on. This is always a problem when we start tacking
>>>>> things on the end of lists.
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise this Kconfig is not alphabetized anyway, but it's never too
>>>>> early to start on the 'right' path.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a good idea, but the issue is: When to do the initial sort
>>>> so it doesn't conflict with all the adds in a kernel cycle... Post and
>>>> immediately commit a new patch near the end of the merge window?
>>>
>>> Given that the maintainer can quite safely do the patch (sorry
>>> maintainers), I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done at the
>>> point where they stop accepting patches for the merge-window. Once the
>>> patches are stopped, sort the list in one last patch.
>
> That only works well if the one maintainer is the only person taking
> patches for the drivers/clocksource tree. It might be true that the "one
> maintainer" here ends up being arm-soc in this kernel cycle though?

I'll send a patch to Linus at the end of the merge window, no need to
do it through a merge -- that way it's trivial for him to fixup a
merge conflict (and he can refuse to take it if he feels it's silly).

>>> It makes sense to get it done in this window if possible as the Kconfig
>>> will only get bigger as time goes on, making sorting it more time
>>> consuming.
>>
>> Actually, Russell wen through and reordered these not long ago, if I
>> remember correctly. The current ordering is the same as in the
>> structure definition, and should be kept that way.
>
> I think this is talking about Makefile entries rather than struct
> definitions?

Ah, yes, they should be sorted. But definitely not right now since
it'll just make things worse.


-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/