Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:50:43 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch() |
| |
* 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.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |