On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Andy, >> > >> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that >> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ... You really have to be very >> > careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased. >> >> Hmm. They were there a couple days ago. Paul, what should I do about >> this? I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in >> luto/next. >> >> > I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for >> > v3.19? If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next >> > until after v3.19-rc1 has been released. >> >> They're for 3.20. I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now. > > You mean the NMI nesting change below, correct? One approach would be > to include the branch rcu/dev from my -rcu tree. Would that work for you? > That would work. The problem is that, if you rebase again and I don't notice, then it'll generate a pile of conflicts. Is there someway that I can flag my next tree as depending on a certain commi existing in another tree so that the scripts that generate linux-next will ignore it if the base commit goes away? --Andy -- 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
