On 2016-06-14 06:32, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Kees, > > On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:57:15 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Strange, I pulled these directly from linux-next. Michal had an >>> auto-responder saying he was going to be out-of-office, so I wanted to >>> make sure the !COMPILE_TEST fix got in. >>> >>> Sounds like I should merge the kbuild tree, rather than cherry-picking >>> from linux-next? I will adjust. > > Cherry-picking produces new commits (with new SHA1s etc), while merging > (or rebasing on top of the other versions) will have the same commits > (not just patches). > > Having the same commits means that they never produce conflicts after > further changes to the same files (unless both sides of the merge make > further changes to the same files). > >> I've done this merge correctly now and pushed a forced update on the kspp tree. > > Thanks for that. Now you just have to hope that Michal never rebases > that part of his tree from under you. (Michal: hint! :-)) I won't :). Kees, are you going to keep the patch in your tree and send it to Linus once kbuild is in? Or shall I take it (which would temporarily result in another duplication...). Thanks, Michal -- 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
