From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:39:45 +1000 Message-ID: <20160913093945.521a28b4@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20160912113224.792b24f0@canb.auug.org.au> <20160912125341.0596ed9f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:44186 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750747AbcILXjt (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:39:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michal Marek Cc: Nicholas Piggin , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Hi Michal, On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:03:08 +0200 Michal Marek wrote: > > On 2016-09-12 04:53, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering > > they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will > > have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these > > kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them. > > I think it makes sense to merge the kbuild changes via kbuild.git, even > if they are unused and untested. Any follow-up fixes required to enable > the first architecture can go through the respective architecture tree. > Does that sound OK? And if you guarantee not to rebase the kbuild tree (or at least the subset containing these patches), then each of the architecture trees can just merge your tree (or a tag?) and then implement any necessary arch dependent changes. I fixes are necessary, they can also be merged into the architecture trees. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell