On Wed, 2014-03-12 at 16:02 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 06:59:56AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Either that or I can put a copy of the patch that introduces the new > > function in my tree as long as it's a single patch. The resulting > > conflict should resolve trivially and Linus should be fine if > > appropriate explanations are provided (though I would have preferred > > pulling in a topic branch). > > An alternative that I personally prefer to resolve conflicts like this > is to pull driver-core-next into the broken tree and resolve it there. > It's highly likely that the pending changes are gonna be included in > the next merge window. If contaminating the merge history is a > concern, it can live in a separate branch which is pulled into > for-next. It's generally consider bad taste to pull entire trees into each other :-) I know Stephen isn't fan of it... I'd rather have just that series (or even better, just the patches introducing the new function) in a topic branch, itself pulled into both driver-core-next and my tree. Can you produce that ? (I need a non-rebase guarantee though). Cheers, Ben. -- 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
