Hi Michael, On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:42:54 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So I see two options: > - I go ahead with my changes and you with yours and let Linus resolve > the conflict. This means bisect build will be broken since the > breakage will likely not be noticed until after the merge. Well, since the resolution is known, the one who submits their tree later should tell Linus (as suggested by Nicholas). That is part of the point of the linux-next tree ... and therefore there would be no bisect problem. > > Stephen (CC'ed) has included a fix in today's linux-next for the merge > > conflict here: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/3 > > > > Please confirm, as it will be a pointer to Linus within the > > target-pending/for-next PULL request. > > Yes but this does mean people trying to bisect will > hit build breakages, not nice. Not necessarily. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
