lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Status of arm-soc.git for 3.2
Date
On Wednesday 04 January 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:43:06PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The merge window is almost there, so it's time to look at what we've queued
> > up in the arm-soc tree. There is a total of 55 branches with 386 non-merge
> > changesets on top of mainline and the dependencies (linux-arm, v4l and
> > dmaengine). The total diffstat is:
> >
> > 676 files changed, 19694 insertions(+), 12633 deletions(-)
>
> Well, my tree looks like this:
> 937 files changed, 8150 insertions(+), 10774 deletions(-)
>
> > I would like to stop adding non-bugfix patches into the branches above now
> > for 3.2, and instead merge everything that I receive from now on into
> > late/* branches, so we don't destabilize the patches that are already there
> > and so I can feel more comfortable about sending everything in the next/*
> > branches upstream ASAP.
>
> I think that's a must - for both our trees. We have quite a number of
> conflicts in linux-next between our trees and other trees - some of them
> due to duplicated commits being applied.

Hmm, I'll have to check that, I was hoping that we manged to weed out
the duplicated commits. Do you have a list, or some (semi-)automated
way to find those, or are those just random commits you stumbled
over.

> I'm feeling less than confident about my tree for this upcoming merge
> window than I've ever felt before - I think we're in for quite a bit
> of stick, possibly from Linus, over the about of silly conflicts and
> duplicates which we have with other trees.

Yes, the silly conflicts last time were a bit too much. Linus always
says that he wants to see the conflicts when they happen, but we
really shouldn't let him see conflicts between your tree and arm-soc.
I think we can eliminate those at least by pulling in your branches
where the conflicts happen.

Olof has updated the arm-soc tree to the latest version of your
devel-stable branch, which means that all conflicts between that
and the branches in arm-soc should be dealt with already. I've
added one merge from devel-stable into our next/drivers2 branch
to prevent a modify/rename conflict and resolved silly conflicts
between branches within arm-soc.

> It's proven to be _impossible_ to sanely do an architecture wide change
> to the way the restart stuff is handled - because SoC maintainers have
> taken to adding their own individual patches for it to their git trees.
> What I had hoped was to get that all sorted by the end of November, and
> publish the whole thing as a stable branch, but that was utterly thwarted
> by non-responsive maintainers - for example, some of this stuff only
> getting finally fixed _yesterday_.

I've not resolved the conflicts between stuff in arm-soc and your restart
branch yet, because I don't know in what order we should do the merges.

We can certainly submit 'arm-soc/fixes-non-critical', 'arm-soc/cleanups'
and 'rmk/devel-stable' right away because there are no conflicts between
those. That alone would get us a great deal forward.

The rest of the arm-soc branches more or less depend on your 'devel-stable'
and conflict with your 'restart' branch. If you want to go first, you
can submit your that branch now, and Olof or I will resolve the conflicts
with it before pushing the arm-soc branches. Alternatively, we
submit everything except 'next/move' and 'next/drivers2' (those should
come last) once your 'devel-stable' is in and let you work out the
conflicts. I'm fine with it either way, but as you say it's certainly
not a easy ride to get them all resolved.

> To some extent, it still is being thwarted by non-responsive maintainers:
> the "Temporary #error" commit is still there. I'm in two minds about
> whether to push that up to Linus or not - they've had sufficient warning
> both on this mailing list, by personal email, and a #error being in
> linux-next making their platform(s) unbuildable for about a month.
>
> Therefore, I have no issues what so ever breaking the three platforms
> (gemini, shmobile, vt8500) which remain unconverted at the next merge
> window, and I don't care what they say about that happening. (If they
> cared, they should respond to email.)

Yep, agreed.

> However, one thing that really concerns me is that we're going to have
> to go through all this again over the next three months, because of the
> arch_idle changes which Nicolas has. I am not looking forward to that.

If you prefer, I can try to handle those in arm-soc, but I'm not sure
if that helps. We can try.

Arnd


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-07 00:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans