> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-rt-users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rt-users- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julia Cartwright > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 1:59 PM > To: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx> > Cc: linux-rt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Merge conflict on RT 4.14 to latest stable > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 03:21:48PM -0600, Dan Murphy wrote: > [..] > > >>>> We have a merge conflict in kernel/softirq.c when upgrading to > > >>>> the latest stable release > > >>> > > >>> Can you elaborate on what you are merging and into where? There > > >>> isn't enough context here to make sense of what you are trying to do. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Sorry for that. I was attempting to merge in the current Linux > > >> 4.14 stable tree 4.14.23 tag into the rt-devel 4.14-rt tree which > > >> is at 4.14.20 > > > > > > You're off into Sebastian territory for 4.14-rt conflicts, although > > > I'm sure he is either already aware, or will shortly be made aware > > > when he does the merge himself. > > > > > > I'm not sure these notifications provide anything but additional > > > unnecessary noise. > > > > How else are we supposed to have this resolved by the RT maintainers? > > First off: sending out an email notification like this doesn't guarantee > anything, at all. > > > There is no consistent merge cadence like we have for the stable RT > > tree. As GKH points out we all need to be using the latest stable. > > I'm actually okay with rt-devel being behind the latest 4.14.y release; stated a > different way: I would consider the merging of a later 4.14.y to be lower > priority than doing more meaningful development work, like driving the rt > patch upstream. Considering right now Sebastian is doing both, I'm okay with > being behind. > > Now, if there are actually real users asking for a 4.14.y merge on a more > frequent cadence, then it might be a sign we should transfer ownership of > this branch to the rt stable team; I'm sure there is already an impeding > conversation in this direction (maybe at ELC). > >From an Intel perspective we would have high interest in a 4.14-stable, and could probably round up a maintainer for it. I would also very much like to see the rt-devel tree more closely track mainline - right now we have the catch-22 of new platform support going into, or at least being developed against, mainline so we don't really have a path for testing new platforms with an rt-enabled kernel without either a painful backport or forward-port. As you note, we should probably queue this up into the partner meeting in a few weeks. > Julia > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the > body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -Gavin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
