linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the gpio-brgl 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]

Message-ID: <ZXch86yIH1pPwHC-@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:51:31 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-intel tree with the
 gpio-brgl tree

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 04:48:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:04:09PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 14:40, Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:15:30AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 04:51, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-intel tree got a conflict in:
> > > > >
> > > > >   drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> > > > >
> > > > > between commit:
> > > > >
> > > > >   c73505c8a001 ("pinctrl: baytrail: use gpiochip_dup_line_label()")
> > > > >
> > > > > from the gpio-brgl tree and commit:
> > > > >
> > > > >   6191e49de389 ("pinctrl: baytrail: Simplify code with cleanup helpers")
> > > > >
> > > > > from the pinctrl-intel tree.

...

> > > > Andy, please pull the following into your baytrail tree:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231208083650.25015-1-brgl@bgdev.pl/
> > >
> > > I can do it, but why?
> > 
> > You were the one who asked me to put these commits into an immutable
> > branch in the first place to avoid conflicts with the baytrail branch.
> > :)
> 
> True with the caveat like (citing by memory): "I see no conflicts with
> the code that needs this PR to be pulled, but just in case."
> 
> So, thank you for PR, but there is nothing pending in my tree that requires
> this PR to be pulled.
> 
> So, when I send the PR to Linus W. (presumably end of this week) it will be
> solved on his level, I believe.

Btw, Torvalds states that 1) conflicts are okay and even good to have
(shows that you don't sneak the last-minute modified code into the PR)
and 2) the any merge should be justified (like real dependency), the
conflict is not a dependency. Maybe that's what was unclear when I asked
you for PR...

> > > Conflicts is a normal practice during kernel development. And I believe this
> > > particular one will be solved by Linus W.
> > >
> > > Stephen, resolution looks correct to me, thank you.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko