Re: [Xenomai] 3.5.7 "I-pipe: could not find timer" (Was: Re: Kernel OOPS during regression tests)

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2013-01-15 14:58, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 02:48 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2013-01-15 14:44, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On 01/15/2013 01:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> On 2013-01-15 13:09, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>> On 01/15/2013 01:06 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/15/2013 12:35 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2013-01-14 21:39, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>>> Done, also note that my current work is the for-core-3.5.7 branch, not
>>>>>>>> the for-core-3.5 branch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both branches point to the same commit ATM. I suppose you didn't push
>>>>>>> the new for-core-3.5.7 version yet. Once done, I'll rebase my stuff on top.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, pushed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please everybody, make sure to eventually resync with my tree, this is
>>>>> becoming a mess when merging your stuff here. TIA,
>>>>
>>>> I'm fetching from you regularly, but your public tree contains no
>>>> changes for 3.5, sorry.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You must mean no change for 3.5.3 since the last stable pipeline release
>>> I pushed out. I'm seeing several breakages when merging the very latest
>>> work, I'm solving this with Gilles.
>>
>> I mean that I have no clue what I should resolve. My branch was based on
>> your core-3.5 branch, the latest publicly available version. I've just
>> rebased it on top of Gilles' 3.5.7 queue - without any conflicts. So
>> what are you talking about?
>>
> 
> I'm talking about conflicts in pgtable.h, apic.c with the atomic counter 
> braindamage and stuff like this. I'm not asking you to fix anything in 
> your tree, I'm pulling from Gilles' trees almost exclusively, and had 
> issues with those. I raised an alert about painful merges happening 
> lately, and a recommendation to avoid these. Gilles fixed the issue on 
> his end, and the merge now resolves as a fast forward, as expected. 
> Issue closed.

I still don't see even that issue (based on what was publicly visible),
but if it's fine now, well, it's fine.

BTW, we are committed on x86 maintenance, so I would suggest to route
all related changes though one tree (per core version) to avoid
conflicts and confusions. Unless there are major concerns on your sides,
I could offer that tree to Philippe to pull from.

In addition, I could provide all generic commits in a separate tree as
well so that Gilles can pull them earlier for testing purposes. If
conflicts between Gilles' and my tree are in sight, we should, of
course, always try to resolve them in advance before offering you the pull.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux