[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <876223ijdu.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:47:49 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: linux-next build conflict between modules and metag trees (LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE)
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com> writes:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> The metag architecture tree adds an add_taint(TAINT_DIE) like other
> architectures do, and the modules-next tree adds the
> LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE flag to all uses of add_taint (but obviously
> misses arch/metag since it doesn't exist yet), causing a compile error
> on metag in -next when the two are merged together.
>
> Is it okay for me to merge your commit 373d4d0 ("taint: add explicit
> flag to show whether lock dep is still OK.") in modules-next into the
> base of the metag tree and expect it not to be rebased, so that I can
> then squash the fix into the metag tree?
This was my fault for taking a shortcut. I should have changed the name
so the old add_taint worked still (set_taint?), then remove add_taint
after the merge.
But I won't be rebasing, so you should be fine to merge it.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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