lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] immutable branch for amba changes targeting v5.12-rc1
    On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 11:18:17AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 10:37:44AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
    > > Hello Russell, hello Greg,
    > >
    > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 07:15:51PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
    > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:59:51PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
    > > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 05:56:50PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > > > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:52:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
    > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > > > > > > > I'm glad to take this through my char/misc tree, as that's where the
    > > > > > > > other coresight changes flow through. So if no one else objects, I will
    > > > > > > > do so...
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Greg, did you end up pulling this after all? If not, Uwe produced a v2.
    > > > > > > I haven't merged v2 yet as I don't know what you've done.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I thought you merged this?
    > > > >
    > > > > I took v1, and put it in a branch I've promised in the past not to
    > > > > rebase/rewind. Uwe is now asking for me to take a v2 or apply a patch
    > > > > on top.
    > > > >
    > > > > The only reason to produce an "immutable" branch is if it's the basis
    > > > > for some dependent work and you need that branch merged into other
    > > > > people's trees... so the whole "lets produce a v2" is really odd
    > > > > workflow... I'm confused about what I should do, and who has to be
    > > > > informed which option I take.
    > > > >
    > > > > I'm rather lost here too.
    > > >
    > > > Sorry to have cause this confusion. After I saw that my initial tag
    > > > missed to adapt a driver I wanted to make it easy for you to fix the
    > > > situation.
    > > > So I created a patch to fix it and created a second tag with the patch
    > > > squashed in. Obviously only one of them have to be picked and I hoped
    > > > you (= Russell + Greg) would agree which option to pick.
    > > >
    > > > My preference would be if you both pick up v2 of the tag to yield a
    > > > history that is bisectable without build problems, but if Russell (who
    > > > already picked up the broken tag) considers his tree immutable and so
    > > > isn't willing to rebase, then picking up the patch is the way to go.
    > >
    > > OK, the current state is that Russell applied the patch fixing
    > > drivers/mailbox/arm_mhuv2.c on top of merging my first tag.
    > >
    > > So the way forward now is that Greg pulls
    > >
    > > git://git.armlinux.org.uk/~rmk/linux-arm.git devel-stable
    > >
    > > which currently points to
    > >
    > > 860660fd829e ("ARM: 9055/1: mailbox: arm_mhuv2: make remove callback return void")
    > >
    > > , into his tree that contains the hwtracing changes that conflict with my
    > > changes. @Greg: Is this good enough, or do you require a dedicated tag
    > > to pull that?
    > >
    > > I think these conflicting hwtracing changes are not yet in any of Greg's
    > > trees (at least they are not in next).
    > >
    > > When I pull
    > >
    > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/coresight/linux.git next
    > >
    > > (currently pointing to 4e73ff249184 ("coresight: etm4x: Handle accesses
    > > to TRCSTALLCTLR")) into 860660fd829e, I get a conflict in
    > > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x-core.c as expected. My
    > > resolution looks as follows:
    >
    > Ok, my resolution looked a bit different.
    >
    > Can you pull my char-misc-testing branch and verify I got this all
    > pulled in correctly?

    minor side-note: mentioning the repo url would have simplified that test.

    I looked at

    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git char-misc-testing

    commit 0573d3fa48640f0fa6b105ff92dcb02b94d6c1ab now.

    I didn't compile test, but I'm willing to bet your resolution is wrong.
    You have no return statement in etm4_remove_dev() but its return type is
    int and etm4_remove_amba() still returns int but should return void.

    Best regards
    Uwe

    --
    Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
    Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-02-06 01:35    [W:9.825 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site