Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree

From: Will Deacon
Date: Sat Oct 26 2013 - 10:02:35 EST

Hi Ingo,

[adding rmk]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 09:40:33AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:03:42PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > I fixed it up (see below). Please verify that the resolution looks good.
> > > Also note that this isn't really a trivial resolution of a conflict, but
> > > required modifying various other files. That causes rerere magic not to
> > > work and needs part of conflict to be resolved manually. Perhaps a good
> > > idea would be to rebase Jean's patch on top of the cleanups going on in
> > > the tip tree? Perhaps even carry the patch in the tip tree?
> >
> > These came via my tree (arm perf) after discussion here:
> >
> >
> >
> > Now that they've been pulled by rmk, we can't back them out with
> > ugly reverts, so I'm not sure what we can do to resolve in the ARM
> > tree; it looks like the perf Makefile has changed significantly in
> > -tip.
> I realize that it was acked by Arnaldo, but for workflow reasons I'd
> really prefer it if non-trivial perf tooling patches went to Arnaldo
> as a pull request so that he can resolve any such conflicts. perf is
> in constant development so it's less work for you that way.

Sure. I wasn't aware quite how much you guys had planned for the perf
Makefile and I (wrongly) assumed that Arnaldo's ack was enough of an
indication that conflicts would be unlikely and/or trivial.

In future, I'll push back on any perf changes outside of arch/ in my tree,
but that doesn't help us get out of the current situation: the patches are
currently sitting in rmk's tree for 3.13, so that won't meet with -tip
(outside of next) until Linus pulls them both. What can we do about that?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at