From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Bolle Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 12 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:31:56 +0100 Message-ID: <1418380316.5756.37.camel@x220> References: <20141212183518.06e3803d@canb.auug.org.au> <1418377757.5756.24.camel@x220> <20141212210449.7f460bb1@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.9]:64302 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews06.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758149AbaLLKb7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:31:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141212210449.7f460bb1@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Valentin Rothberg , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 21:04 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > That patch has been in linux-next since Dec 3 as commit 77a4494388ab in > Andrew's patch set (and maybe earlier). Not earlier. Commit 77a4494388ab debuted in next-20141203: $ git tag --contains 77a4494388ab next-20141203 next-20141204 next-20141205 next-20141208 next-20141209 next-20141210 next-20141211 next-20141212 I missed that commit. But then again it never occurred to me that a Kconfig symbol would be added and removed in one series. And, obviously, grepping for INIT_FALLBACK didn't show anything in linux-next before today (the oldest tree I checked was next-20141201, after which I lost interest in going back any further). > However, also in Adnrew's > patch set is another patch ("init: remove CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK") that > then removes CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK. There is a conflict because the > first has gone into Linus' tree today (as commit 6ef4536e2f19), but the > second has not (I don't know why not). > > Hmmm, I would have expected the Kconfig entry to be removed as well, > but either I missed that, or git is not as clever as I expect it to be. > > > Anyhow, I'm sure this all will be sorted out in due time. > > I hope so. I won't be bothering (Andrew and) you again about this. Unless sorting this out takes rather long, that is. Thanks, Paul Bolle