From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: DRM pull for v5.3-rc1 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 19:17:08 +0000 Message-ID: <20190715191702.GD5043@mellanox.com> References: <20190715122924.GA15202@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <31A30FDC27B98847BD0C7E4675A970D1@eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dave Airlie , Daniel Vetter , dri-devel , LKML , Andrew Morton , Jerome Glisse , Thomas Hellstrom , Stephen Rothwell List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:16:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [ Ugh, I have three different threads about the drm pull because of > the subject / html confusion. So now I'm replying in separate threads > and I'm hoping the people involved have better threading than gmail > does ;/ ] >=20 > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:29 AM Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > The 'hmm' tree is something I ran to try and help workflow issues like > > this, as it could be merged to DRM as a topic branch - maybe consider > > this flow in future? > > > > Linus, do you have any advice on how best to handle sharing mm > > patches? >=20 > I don't have a lot of advice except for "very very carefully". >=20 > I think the hmm tree worked really well this merge window, at least > from my standpoint. >=20 > But it is of course possible that my happiness about the hmm tree is a > complete fluke and came about because pretty much all the patches were > removing oddities and cleaning things up, and they weren't adding new > odd things (or if they were, you hid it better ;^). lol Actually I think it was a lot of effort from many people to monitor and stay on top of conflicts, and there was certainly a deliberate effort to bring many people together. About the only thing I could concretely suggest for working with -mm is if there was some way the -mm quilt patches could participate in 'git merge' resolution at your level. I only say this because the lowest point was when merging CH's series to hmm.git caused Andrew to have to do a lot of work rebasing DanW's series during rc7. Arguably that should have been my work preparing a conflict resolution instruction, not his doing rebases. .. and if we needed to revise hmm.git Dan's series would have been at more risk. It kind of still is as I haven't seen him Ack Andrew's rebase yet? Thanks, Jason