[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch()
    On 01/05/2011 11:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * David Daney<> wrote:
    >> On 01/05/2011 11:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >>> * H. Peter Anvin<> wrote:
    >>>> On 01/05/2011 09:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 09:32 -0800, David Daney wrote:
    >>>>>> This patch will conflict with the MIPS jump label support that Ralf has
    >>>>>> queued up for 2.6.38.
    >>>>> Can you disable that support for now? As Linus said at Kernel Summit,
    >>>>> other archs jumped too quickly onto the jump label band wagon. This
    >>>>> change really needs to get in, and IMO, it is more critical to clean up
    >>>>> the jump label code than to have other archs implementing it.
    >>>> Ralf is really good... perhaps we can get the conflicts resolved?
    >>> Yep, the best Git-ish way to handle that is to resolve the conflicts whenever they
    >>> happen - i.e. whoever merges his tree upstream later. No need for anyone to 'wait'
    >>> or undo anything.
    >> There will be no git conflicts, as the affected files are disjoint.
    > I regularly resolve semantic conflicts in merge commits - or in the first followup
    > commit.

    But I am guessing that neither you, nor Linus, regularly build MIPS
    kernels with GCC-4.5.x *and* jump label support enabled. So how would
    such semantic conflict ever be detected? I would expect the conflict to
    first occur when Linus pulls Ralf's tree.

    I don't expect anybody to magically fix such things, so whatever
    happens, I will test it and submit patches if required.

    David Daney

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-01-05 21:11    [W:0.023 / U:5.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site