Hi Nick,
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:16 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:11 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Miguel,
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:47:12 +0200 Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Compiler Attributes series has been stable for 10+ days. To
> > > increase testing before 4.20, I would to request it being picked up
> > > for -next.
> > >
> > > The changes w.r.t. v5 in the LKML:
> > >
> > > - Rebased on top of next-20180928, which required removing
> >
> > Unfortunately, trees/branches included in linux-next must be based on
> > something stable (usually Linus' tree, but it could be another
> > tree/branch that is included in linux-next that does not rebase).
> > Linux-next itself rebases every day, so snything based on it would drag
> > in a previous version of all the other trees :-(
>
> I think of this like a branch that's force pushed to. Can't base
> other branches or trees off of it cause it's always moving/force
> rewriting history.
As I have read, -next is supposed to be a vision of what the merge
window will look like after merging everything, i.e. ideally -rc1. For
that to work for files out-of-tree (like these ones, which are not
maintained by a single tree), changes should be allowed to be stacked
on each other; otherwise, we cannot handle conflicts :-(
>
> >
> > > aligned_largest, which was removed by 9503cd9cbaba
> > > ("include/linux/compiler*.h: add version detection to
> > > asm_volatile_goto").
> >
> > That commit is from Andrew's patch series which also rebases (usually
> > at least every week), so you cannot depend on it.
>
> Miguel, you should be able to drop that patch from your set then,
> since Andrew's -mm tree flows into this -next tree as well, IIUC.
> We'll take up that patch from there.
Not sure what you mean by "drop that patch". There is no patch to
drop, there is a conflict with a change already in -next.
Cheers,
Miguel
