Hi Ingo, [adding rmk] On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 09:40:33AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:42PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > I fixed it up (see below). Please verify that the resolution looks good. > > > Also note that this isn't really a trivial resolution of a conflict, but > > > required modifying various other files. That causes rerere magic not to > > > work and needs part of conflict to be resolved manually. Perhaps a good > > > idea would be to rebase Jean's patch on top of the cleanups going on in > > > the tip tree? Perhaps even carry the patch in the tip tree? > > > > These came via my tree (arm perf) after discussion here: > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/203077.html > > > > Now that they've been pulled by rmk, we can't back them out with > > ugly reverts, so I'm not sure what we can do to resolve in the ARM > > tree; it looks like the perf Makefile has changed significantly in > > -tip. > > I realize that it was acked by Arnaldo, but for workflow reasons I'd > really prefer it if non-trivial perf tooling patches went to Arnaldo > as a pull request so that he can resolve any such conflicts. perf is > in constant development so it's less work for you that way. Sure. I wasn't aware quite how much you guys had planned for the perf Makefile and I (wrongly) assumed that Arnaldo's ack was enough of an indication that conflicts would be unlikely and/or trivial. In future, I'll push back on any perf changes outside of arch/ in my tree, but that doesn't help us get out of the current situation: the patches are currently sitting in rmk's tree for 3.13, so that won't meet with -tip (outside of next) until Linus pulls them both. What can we do about that? Will -- 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
