[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v7vso4d4.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2024 23:53:27 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Stephen Rothwell
<sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin"
<hpa@...or.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the tip tree
On Mon, Dec 09 2024 at 12:21, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 11:45 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:08:42 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > Why is this in -mm ?
>>
>> Because
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241206225204.4008261-1-surenb@google.com/T/#u
>> needs it.
>>
>> > I agreed with Suren I'd take them through
>> > tip/perf/core to go along with Andrii's uprobe patch that relies on
>> > them.
>
> Both trees now have changes depending on those patches. If we can't
> have them in both trees then I can rework my last patchset in the mm
> tree to use old seqcount code and not require those patches, but we
> will have to deal with the merge conflicts later.
Usually one tree picks the changes up into a seperate branch based on
-rc1 and declares that branch immutable by tagging it. Both trees then
can merge it into their respective branches which depend on it.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists