From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <52147E94.6070309@siemens.com> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:47:16 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <52147CD7.70400@siemens.com> <52147DF2.8060407@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <52147DF2.8060407@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai] [RFC] x86 port to kernel 3.10 List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: Xenomai On 2013-08-21 10:44, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > On 08/21/2013 10:39 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> in the process of updating our kernel support to current (and long-term) >> stable 3.10, I've pushed the I-pipe master tree to that version. The >> tree is available at >> >> git://git.xenomai.org/ipipe-jki.git next-x86 >> >> Though the focus is on x86, this became a full merge, ie. I also tried >> to resolve ARM and PowerPC conflicts (other archs had none). But I'm >> sure I broke some things (or things were already broken after the 3.9 >> merge - there were suspicious unresolved conflicts). So these arch need >> a careful check! Specifically watch out for merges that resolved >> conflicts in their trees. >> > > I would prefer to have the conflict markers in the git tree, so that we > know where the conflicts occur. Having to browse history to find all the > merge conflicts seems more complicated than greping for '>>>'. Of > course, it means that when all the conflicts are resolved, the kernel > should be rebased to remove the commits with the merge conflicts, so as > to keep a bisectable kernel. As you cannot rebase merges (without losing history), this is not really applicable. I can leave in conflicts that affect ARM or Power, sure, but then the fix-ups will have to happen on top, taking away bisectability. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux