On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:20:58AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Josh, > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:58:12 -0800 Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Won't splitting the Makefile change into a separate commit break > > bisection, in particular if you have the changes adding inlines but you > > also compile in lglock.o? Shouldn't this be squashed into the merge > > itself, keeping the kernel/Makefile section of my original patch? > > Actually it is not a problem because that fix patch was applied to the > merge commit between the part of Andrew's tree that depends only on > Linus' tree and the rest of linux-next. So each side of the merge is ok > and the merge commit itself fixes up the conflict. > > I just split it this way for my work flow purposes. Ah, I see. That wasn't obvious to me from your previous mail explaining your fix. :) - Josh Triplett -- 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
