On Mon Feb 10, 2025 at 9:07 AM -05, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025, Kurt Borja wrote: > >> On Mon Feb 10, 2025 at 6:53 AM -05, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > >> > It is one of the reasons why I prefer to have move patches do as little >> > extra work as possible because I can use pipelines to verify the pre and >> > post content is identical. >> > >> > I usually starting by diffing - and + lines in the diff which is how I >> > came across this one too. In the best case there are no code line changes >> > at all but all changes are in the boilerplate, it gives very high >> > confidence on the move being done correctly. When a rebase conflicts, >> > everyone (me included), might introduce unintended changes to move-only >> > patches so I tend to check even my own move patches in similar fashion to >> > avoid making stupid mistakes. >> >> Speaking of this. Let's say I want to add a new model to the DMI list, >> how should I go about it? >> >> If I base it on the fixes branches it's going to conflict when merging >> with Linus, and even worse, it would need to be manually added to >> alienware-wmi-wmax.c every time it happens. >> >> My solution is to just base the added models on the for-next branch. Of >> course users wouldn't get this until v6.15 but I'd prefer not to give >> you or some other maintainer extra work. >> >> Another solution is to make two patches one for for-next and one for >> stable, but I don't know if people do this to begin with. >> >> What do you think about this? > > It is possible for me to merge the fixes branch containing the new model > into for-next to avoid Linus having to deal with such conflicts. However, > it only moves the stable conflicts problem by one kernel release because > after 6.14 is released, all new additions will be based on the 6.15 code > anyway so any patch going into stable will have to deal with the conflicts. > > If you so prefer, it is fine for me if you want base them on for-next > after such a major restructuring, I won't complain. But as you said, > there's a small delay until stable will pick them up. They do actually A small delay of a couple of months :p > start to pick the patches into stable right after 6.15-rc1 (and > sometimes even during the merge window), not only after 6.15 release. I will do it like this then, I'd prefer no conflicts. Thanks! -- ~ Kurt > > You do get a FAILED mail from the stable maintainers if a patch they > wanted to apply doesn't apply without conflicts and then can send them > a backported version.
