On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 10:37:44AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Russell, hello Greg,
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 07:15:51PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:59:51PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 05:56:50PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:52:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > I'm glad to take this through my char/misc tree, as that's where the
> > > > > > other coresight changes flow through. So if no one else objects, I will
> > > > > > do so...
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg, did you end up pulling this after all? If not, Uwe produced a v2.
> > > > > I haven't merged v2 yet as I don't know what you've done.
> > > >
> > > > I thought you merged this?
> > >
> > > I took v1, and put it in a branch I've promised in the past not to
> > > rebase/rewind. Uwe is now asking for me to take a v2 or apply a patch
> > > on top.
> > >
> > > The only reason to produce an "immutable" branch is if it's the basis
> > > for some dependent work and you need that branch merged into other
> > > people's trees... so the whole "lets produce a v2" is really odd
> > > workflow... I'm confused about what I should do, and who has to be
> > > informed which option I take.
> > >
> > > I'm rather lost here too.
> >
> > Sorry to have cause this confusion. After I saw that my initial tag
> > missed to adapt a driver I wanted to make it easy for you to fix the
> > situation.
> > So I created a patch to fix it and created a second tag with the patch
> > squashed in. Obviously only one of them have to be picked and I hoped
> > you (= Russell + Greg) would agree which option to pick.
> >
> > My preference would be if you both pick up v2 of the tag to yield a
> > history that is bisectable without build problems, but if Russell (who
> > already picked up the broken tag) considers his tree immutable and so
> > isn't willing to rebase, then picking up the patch is the way to go.
>
> OK, the current state is that Russell applied the patch fixing
> drivers/mailbox/arm_mhuv2.c on top of merging my first tag.
>
> So the way forward now is that Greg pulls
>
> git://git.armlinux.org.uk/~rmk/linux-arm.git devel-stable
>
> which currently points to
>
> 860660fd829e ("ARM: 9055/1: mailbox: arm_mhuv2: make remove callback return void")
>
> , into his tree that contains the hwtracing changes that conflict with my
> changes. @Greg: Is this good enough, or do you require a dedicated tag
> to pull that?
>
> I think these conflicting hwtracing changes are not yet in any of Greg's
> trees (at least they are not in next).
>
> When I pull
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git next
>
> (currently pointing to 4e73ff249184 ("coresight: etm4x: Handle accesses
> to TRCSTALLCTLR")) into 860660fd829e, I get a conflict in
> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c as expected. My
> resolution looks as follows:
Ok, my resolution looked a bit different.
Can you pull my char-misc-testing branch and verify I got this all
pulled in correctly?
thanks,
greg k-h
