lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree
Hi Michal,

[For the new cc's, we are discussing the "thin archives" and "link dead
code/data elimination" patches in the kbuild tree.]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:39:45 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:03:08 +0200 Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > On 2016-09-12 04:53, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering
> > > they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will
> > > have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these
> > > kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them.
> >
> > I think it makes sense to merge the kbuild changes via kbuild.git, even
> > if they are unused and untested. Any follow-up fixes required to enable
> > the first architecture can go through the respective architecture tree.
> > Does that sound OK?
>
> And if you guarantee not to rebase the kbuild tree (or at least the
> subset containing these patches), then each of the architecture trees
> can just merge your tree (or a tag?) and then implement any necessary
> arch dependent changes. I fixes are necessary, they can also be merged
> into the architecture trees.

Except, of course, the kbuild tree still has the asm EXPORT_SYMBOL
patches that produce warnings on PowerPC :-( (And I am still reverting
the PowerPC specific one of those patches).

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:59    [W:0.082 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site