Re: [PULL 0/7] ppc patch queue 2013-03-22

Alexander Graf
2013-03-31T11:05:40Z

On 31.03.2013, at 12:49, Gleb Natapov wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:37:42AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 03/25/2013 08:33:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:35:09AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 26.03.2013, at 00:16, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/25/2013 05:59:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> On 25.03.2013, at 23:54, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/25/2013 05:32:11 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25.03.2013, at 23:21, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -next? These are bugfixes, at least partially for
>>> regressions from 3.8 (that I pointed out before the bugs were
>>> merged!), that should go into master.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, what about:
>>>>>>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/226227/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've got all four patches in kvm-ppc-3.9 as of a few
>>> weeks ago -- will you be requesting a pull for that soon?
>>>>>>>> Sigh. I guess I've screwed up the whole "let's make -next
>>> an unusable tree and fix regressions in a separate one" workflow
>>> again. Sorry for that.
>>>>>>>> Since the patches already trickled into kvm's next branch,
>>> all we can do now is to wait for them to come back through stable,
>>> right? Marcelo, Gleb?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you can still submit that kvm-ppc-3.9 pull request. :-)
>>>>>> I can, but nobody would pull it, as it'd create ugly merge
>>> commits when 3.10 opens
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lousy excuse for leaving bugs unfixed.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. So if it doesn't hurt to have the same commits in
>>> kvm/next and kvm/master, I'd be more than happy to send another
>>> pull request with the important fixes against kvm/master as well.
>>>>
>>> If it will result in the same commit showing twice in the Linus
>>> tree in 3.10 we cannot do that.
>>
>> Why?
>>
> Because Linus distastes it and mat refuse to pull. There is a way to avoid
> such double commits: push fix to Linus tree and merge it back to next.

Yes, that's the normal workflow. But what if we screw up (like I did)? Does having a working 3.9 kernel win over double commits in the tree? I'd say yes, but it might be best to just ask Linus directly.

Linus, I accidentally sent a pull request including fixes that were meant for master for kvm/next which got accepted. Now we have those commits in there. However, I would prefer if we could have them in master, so that we have a known good 3.9 kernel for kvm on powerpc.

I could send another pull request against master, but that would mean that after merging things back on the next merge window, there would be a few duplicate commits in the history.

Do you think that's a big no-go, or would you be ok with duplicate commits in case of an occasional screwup?

Thanks,

Alex