lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-05 21:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans