linux-next: build failure after merge of the s5p tree

linux-next: build failure after merge of the s5p tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --]

Hi Kukjin,

After merging the s5p tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed badly.   The problem is that you have merged into
your tree a version of the driver-core tree that I reported broken on Dec
28.

Presumably you merged the driver-core tree to fix up some conflicts I
have reported.  Don't do that, please.  Either leave them for Linus to
fix up, or do a merge of Linus' tree after he has merged the (hopefully
fixed) driver-core tree during the merge window. Or send him your tree
unmerged with the merged version available for him to use if he wants to.

I have used the s5p tree from next-20111228 for today.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

RE: linux-next: build failure after merge of the s5p tree

[Kukjin Kim]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> Hi Kukjin,
> 
Hi,

> After merging the s5p tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed badly.   The problem is that you have merged into
> your tree a version of the driver-core tree that I reported broken on Dec
> 28.
> 
Oops, sorry that.

> Presumably you merged the driver-core tree to fix up some conflicts I
> have reported.  Don't do that, please.  Either leave them for Linus to
> fix up, or do a merge of Linus' tree after he has merged the (hopefully
> fixed) driver-core tree during the merge window. Or send him your tree
> unmerged with the merged version available for him to use if he wants to.
> 
OK, I see. Firstly, I will rebase my for-next as per your suggestion. As you
know, I just wanted to avoid known conflicts with driver-core tree.

> I have used the s5p tree from next-20111228 for today.

OK.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the s5p tree

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> OK, I see. Firstly, I will rebase my for-next as per your suggestion. As you
> know, I just wanted to avoid known conflicts with driver-core tree.

Please, in general you should *not* rebase on top of other peoples
trees either. What's the conflict and why do you need that other tree
in the first place?

                       Linus

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the s5p tree

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 08:20:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> > OK, I see. Firstly, I will rebase my for-next as per your suggestion. As you
> > know, I just wanted to avoid known conflicts with driver-core tree.
> 
> Please, in general you should *not* rebase on top of other peoples
> trees either. What's the conflict and why do you need that other tree
> in the first place?

There's lots of merge conflicts with the driver-next tree due to some
changes we made there.  We'll work them out before they get pushed to
your tree.

thanks,

greg k-h

RE: linux-next: build failure after merge of the s5p tree

[Kukjin Kim]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> > OK, I see. Firstly, I will rebase my for-next as per your suggestion. As
> you
> > know, I just wanted to avoid known conflicts with driver-core tree.
> 
> Please, in general you should *not* rebase on top of other peoples

OK, I will remember. And as a note, I didn't 'rebase' on top of other tree
just 'merge' in the case of having dependency with others and of course if
that is _really_ required. But we know, if the merged tree is rebased,
something wrong will happen :(

> trees either. What's the conflict and why do you need that other tree
> in the first place?
> 
The driver-core tree changed usage(?) of sysdev_class and touched some files
and the changed files have been merged into one file for some reason without
driver-core's changes in samsung tree. So I just wanted to avoid the
conflicts. Linus, how should/can I do in  this case?

Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the s5p tree

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
>>
> The driver-core tree changed usage(?) of sysdev_class and touched some files
> and the changed files have been merged into one file for some reason without
> driver-core's changes in samsung tree. So I just wanted to avoid the
> conflicts. Linus, how should/can I do in  this case?

Generally, unless the conflicts are *really* bad, just ignore them,
and let me sort them out. It's nice if you mention the fact that there
will be conflicts, and some people also send me a pre-merged tree that
has the conflicts fixed up, but in general it's much better if the
different trees ignore each other - that way we don't have random
merges that mean that I cannot pull one tree without pulling another.

If the conflicts are just insanely bad, I'll ask you to resolve them
for me when I hit them, but in general that's a sign that something
nasty is going on and people are developing in the wrong trees or just
stepping on each others toes too much.

                   Linus