From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752721Ab1AETvU (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:51:20 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:35134 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751324Ab1AETvT (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:51:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:50:43 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Daney Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Steven Rostedt , Jason Baron , Ralf Baechle , peterz@infradead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, tglx@linutronix.de, andi@firstfloor.org, roland@redhat.com, rth@redhat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, avi@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, sam@ravnborg.org, michael@ellerman.id.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch() Message-ID: <20110105195043.GA9399@elte.hu> References: <2d8c38bd7ca93e162aedb8e7acfc8bdb96d85de2.1294239591.git.jbaron@redhat.com> <4D24AB1B.2010209@caviumnetworks.com> <1294249439.26623.35.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <4D24BED1.5000900@zytor.com> <20110105191424.GA7820@elte.hu> <4D24C756.9070302@caviumnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D24C756.9070302@caviumnetworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Daney wrote: > On 01/05/2011 11:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > >* H. Peter Anvin 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