On Fri, 13 May 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:06:34AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> > > arch/x86/kernel/i8253.c between commit 3490f584b9ba ("clocksource: convert
> > > x86 to generic i8253 clocksource") from the arm tree and commit b01cc1b0eae0
> > > ("x86: Convert remaining x86 clocksources to clocksource_register_hz/khz")
> > > from the tip tree.
> > >
> > > The former seems to supercede the latter, so I used the former.
> >
> > Russell, how the heck did this commit:
> >
> > commit 3490f584b9ba5a0b6f63832fbc9c5ec72506697b
> > Author: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > AuthorDate: Sun May 8 18:55:19 2011 +0100
> > Commit: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CommitDate: Tue May 10 08:20:54 2011 +0100
> >
> > clocksource: convert x86 to generic i8253 clocksource
> >
> > which has such a clearly x86 diffstat:
> >
> > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
> > arch/x86/include/asm/i8253.h | 2 +
> > arch/x86/kernel/i8253.c | 79 +-----------------------------------------
> > 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
> >
> > end up in the ARM tree without an ack from an x86 maintainer??
Acked-by-me!
> The "no response" means two things: either that people are busy, or people
> don't care about the patch. There is a patch from David Martin modifying
> linux/elf.h adding one line to it which has not had any response. Should
> we assume the silence means that people are busy? If we did that, nothing
> would ever happen.
>
> > I see the commit has an ack from John but that feedback is not visible in the
> > lkml thread of this patch nor did John really realize the conflict nor the
>
> I have no idea why John's ack is not visible, especially as it was sent
> to lkml _and_ explicitly copied to you.
>
> > build breakage. The patch was still in the to-be-reviewed queue of our patches.
> >
> > Nor was it tested properly. The patch looks sane but your workflow sucks.
> > Please revert it and use a proper Git workflow to change arch/x86/ details ...
>
> I don't think so. I created a patch. I posted it to relevant people.
> I got an ack. So I put it into linux-next for further testing rather
> than having it sitting around here getting zero testing.
>
> That's the _proper_ thing to do. linux-next found some problems, so
> let's sort them out - great, that's what linux-next is there for. Let's
> sort them out instead of assigning blame.
>
> And hey, it found a problem, and the problem has now been fixed. Which
> is great, and that should be visible to linux-next soon.
>
> As for merge conflicts, they happen. They get sorted. It's no big deal.
> Again, that's what linux-next is there to find and allow people to
> _discuss_ how to resolve them. It's not about avoiding all conflicts
> no matter what or blaming people when conflicts happen.
>
> Lastly, I have absolutely no problem about pulling the x86 bits out of
> this series if they cause a conflict or don't get an ack. I operate a
> flexible approach to my git tree for stuff like this which allows stuff
> to be dropped or updated as necessary.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
