Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 May 2017 15:53:57 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC GIT PULL, v2] RCU changes for v4.12 |
| |
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 02:08:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:17:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > >> It kind of implies that the prep work that linux-next does doesn't get > >> fully used. > > > > I did see that from linux-next. For future reference, what should I > > have done with it? Added it to my pull request or to the commit log of > > my merge commit? > > Basically, just forward the information along with the description of > what's in the branch, so that I know to expect it. > > In this case it didn't actually *matter*, since I noticed it on my > own, but particularly if I'm on the road I don't generally have the > compute power with me to do a full allmodconfig build between each > pull (I usually do one or two a day), so I can miss these things more > easily. And if it happens on other architectures, I wouldn't notice. > > It doesn't have to be exhaustive. Just a note saying that "there's > going to be a semantic merge conflict in file xyz due to abc" means > that I can then specifically take it into account. Even if I were to > be on the road, I can then check that particular driver out and make > sure to check that it builds, etc.
Got it, thank you!
> [ Sometimes I also take those kinds of conflict notes into account for > pull scheduling. For example, back when the kids were small, and I > ended up having to occasionally drive them around, I used to aim to do > the simple quick pulls first, delaying things that might need more > care until I didn't have some driving schedule over my head. That > happens less these days when the kids are off to college and the sole > remaining one mostly drives herself around. ]
Time does fly -- my youngest graduated from college a couple of years ago.
Thanx, Paul
| |