linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 9 Nov 2013 10:20:58 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
 tree

Hi Josh,

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:58:12 -0800 Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
>
> Won't splitting the Makefile change into a separate commit break
> bisection, in particular if you have the changes adding inlines but you
> also compile in lglock.o?  Shouldn't this be squashed into the merge
> itself, keeping the kernel/Makefile section of my original patch?

Actually it is not a problem because that fix patch was applied to the
merge commit between the part of Andrew's tree that depends only on
Linus' tree and the rest of linux-next.  So each side of the merge is ok
and the merge commit itself fixes up the conflict.

I just split it this way for my work flow purposes.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped