On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:01:39 AM Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> the reason why we need to change those codes for x86, we want to make it support >> >> pci root bus hotplug. So it would be reasonable for us to align other >> >> platform to x86 >> >> changes after pci root bus hotplug change is completely done. >> > >> > OK, I opened https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52531 as a >> > way to keep track of this consistency issue and merged >> > pci/yinghai-survey-resources to my -next branch. >> >> Thanks a lot. will send other pci root bus hotplug out. >> >> question: now Rafael's tree has acpi-scan branch and it touches pci-root.c. >> >> so is it ok for me to base patches on your pci/next and his pm/acpi-scan? >> how? >> can you two have some arrangement like you pulling Rafael's branch? > > My acpi-scan branch is not going to be rebased going forward, so it can be > pulled from safely if that helps. I'm happy to do that, but it is outside the scope of my limited git experience. My guess is that I should do this (doing the pull into a branch which I later merge into my -next branch): $ git checkout -b pci/yinghai-survey-resources+acpi-scan pci/yinghai-survey-resources $ git pull --no-ff --log git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git acpi-scan $ vi drivers/acpi/pci_root.c # resolve conflicts $ git add drivers/acpi/pci_root.c $ git commit $ git checkout next $ git merge --no-ff --log pci/yinghai-survey-resources+acpi-scan Is that reasonable? This won't cause issues when both Rafael and I ask Linus to pull from our trees later? Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
