Hi Michal, On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:03:08 +0200 Michal Marek <mmarek@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2016-09-12 04:53, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering > > they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will > > have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these > > kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them. > > I think it makes sense to merge the kbuild changes via kbuild.git, even > if they are unused and untested. Any follow-up fixes required to enable > the first architecture can go through the respective architecture tree. > Does that sound OK? And if you guarantee not to rebase the kbuild tree (or at least the subset containing these patches), then each of the architecture trees can just merge your tree (or a tag?) and then implement any necessary arch dependent changes. I fixes are necessary, they can also be merged into the architecture trees. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell -- 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
