On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 05:02:09PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 4:16 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:37:21PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> > > Aha. So shall we submit this to Russell? I figure that his git will not
> > > build *without* the changes from mmotm?
> > >
> > > That tree isn't using git either is it?
> > >
> > > Is this one of those cases where we should ask Stephen R
> > > to carry this patch on top of -next until the merge window?
> >
> > Another solution would be to drop 9017/2 ("Enable KASan for ARM")
> > until the following merge window, and queue up the non-conflicing
> > ARM KASan fixes in my "misc" branch along with the rest of KASan,
> > and the conflicting patches along with 9017/2 in the following
> > merge window.
> >
> > That means delaying KASan enablement another three months or so,
> > but should result in less headaches about how to avoid build
> > breakage with different bits going through different trees.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I suppose I would survive deferring it. Or we could merge the
> smaller enablement patch towards the end of the merge
> window once the MM changes are in.
>
> If it is just *one* patch in the MM tree I suppose we could also
> just apply that one patch also to the ARM tree, and then this
> fixup on top. It does look a bit convoluted in the git history with
> two hashes and the same patch twice, but it's what I've done
> at times when there was no other choice that doing that or
> deferring development. It works as long as the patches are
> textually identical: git will cope.
I thought there was a problem that if I applied the fix then my tree
no longer builds without the changes in -mm?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
