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  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:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:44:27 +0100
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@...rkiz.com>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the renesas tree with the arm-soc
 tree

On 04/01/2014 06:11, Olof Johansson :
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 16/12/2013 00:47, Stephen Rothwell :
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the renesas tree got a conflict in
>>> drivers/clk/Makefile between commit 0ad6125b1579 ("clk: at91: add PMC
>>> base support") from the arm-soc tree and commit 10cdfe9f327a ("clk:
>>> shmobile: Add R-Car Gen2 clocks support") from the renesas tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>>> is required).
>>
>> Fine for me.
> 
> Simon, Nicolas,
> 
> <mini-rant>
> 
> While a very minor issue, this should have been altogether avoided
> with a little more attention when applying patches. The Makefile is
> sorted, and you've appended new lines to the end instead of in the
> place they're supposed to go. Sure, others have done the same mistake
> in a few places but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep it
> sorted.
> 
> The very reason _to_ sort a Makefile is to avoid these needless
> add-add conflicts when two people append to the same unsorted list.
> 
> Now I can't resolve it properly and move the entries when I do the
> same merge (and get the same conflict), because that will cause a
> third conflict for Stephen, and he's about to return from vacation and
> is going to cuss at us if we cause too many new conflicts in one day.
> :)
> 
> </mini-rant>
> 
> So, best choice is to keep the unsortedness now, and have Mike resort
> his Makefile for us at the end of the merge window. And keep a little
> closer eye on Makefile and Kconfig additions in the future. :)

Totally agree in keeping a Makefile sorted, when it is already sorted.
What I recall having thought when I had seen this Makefile is: well this
one must be of the "append your changes to the end" type...

Anyway be sure that I will pay attention to this.

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre
--
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