Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:07:49 -0800 | From | David Daney <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch() |
| |
On 01/05/2011 11:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * David Daney<ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: > >> On 01/05/2011 11:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> >>> * H. Peter Anvin<hpa@zytor.com> 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.
Thanks, David Daney
| |