linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core 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]

Message-ID: <20140315052942.GA30262@kroah.com>
Date:	Sat, 15 Mar 2014 05:29:42 +0000
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Stewart Smith <stewart@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:57:29PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-15 at 00:03 +0000, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:14:55AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 11:37 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:21 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > > It's a series of rather complex patches.  I really don't think
> > > > > duplicating them is a good idea.  We can either resurrect the old API
> > > > > to kill it again or set up a merge branch which I don't think is too
> > > > > unusual in situations like this.
> > > > 
> > > > Right, a topic branch that gets merged in both driver-core-next and
> > > > powerpc-next.
> > > 
> > > Just want to make sure we agree ... ie, the offending commit is already
> > > in powerpc-next on my side and I can't really back it out (I could
> > > revert it though).
> > 
> > You can pull in driver-core-next into your tree if you want, it's not
> > going to be reverted, and will be sent to Linus for 3.15-rc1, so you can
> > base your work on it and fix up the api usage in your tree that way.
> 
> It's messy. Stephen really doesn't like if we pull each other trees like
> that unless they are topic branches. He also doesn't like when we keep
> pulling Linus in.

I only pull Linus in after a -rc in which I have merged patches with him
for that "topic".  Otherwise I end up with merge issues, and for testing
reasons, I want those fixes from Linus and from me, in order to keep
people from hitting the same already-fixes issues.

> For example I purposefully kept powerpc -next on top of rc2. You seem to
> regularly merge subsequent rc's into driver-core-next. So by pulling
> your tree I would bring a whole lot of stuff on top of mine, which is
> fine by git but makes histories more complicated and annoys Stephen.
> 
> I might still do it this time around, because the other solution for me
> is revert + re-apply with fixups on top of a separate branch itself
> derived from driver-core-next and send multiple pull requests to Linus,
> and that's messy too. The question is which one is more :-)

Just take my tree, it's not a big deal, I'll merge first with Linus if
you want and then everything is simple.

thanks,

greg k-h-
--
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/