Hi, On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 03:41:15 -0600 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > So, a couple of questions: > > > > Have you done a trial merge with a current linux-next tree to see what > > sort of mess/pain we may already be in? > > Yes, the repo I prepared for you is based on the latest linux-next. > There shouldn't be any conflicts. Ah, that is a problem :-( I can't merge a branch into linux-next if that branch is based on linux-next itself. linux-next rebases everyday, so that merge would bring in the previous version of linux-next - including other branches that may have rebased :-( All the branches in linux-next need to be based on Linus' tree or some tree that does not rebase (or one you can keep up with if it does rebase). The only exception is part of Andrew's patch series which is rebased (by me) on top of linux-next each day. > > Is it all stable enough now that it could be sent as a patch series for > > Andrew to include in mmotm (with perhaps just smallish followup patches)? > > Yes, on multiple occasions, e.g., [1][2][3], I've claimed this > patchset has an unprecedented test coverage and nobody has proven > otherwise so far. > > Andrew suggested a cycle in linux-next [4]. So here we are :) So the easiest thing for me is if Andrew takes it into his mmotm patch series (most of which ends up in linux-next). Otherwise I am probably at some point going to need help fixing the conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgphGB__3VNJF.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
