From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Thumb-2 kernel support Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:10:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20080723151045.bcae107e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080606173300.7930.31525.stgit@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <20080630125110.1dc5689a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1214901131.29199.31.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <20080701014529.272706d8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1216829155.23395.19.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <20080723130140.ff016944.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1216847422.6550.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:51862 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753353AbYGWWLm (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:11:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1216847422.6550.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:10:22 +0100 Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 13:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:05:55 +0100 > > Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > Were the Thumb-2 patches merged in any of the -mm tree releases? I now > > > updated the series to the 2.6.26-rc8-mm1 kernel if you still consider > > > merging them (___git://linux-arm.org/linux-2.6 for-akpm). > > > > I pull it regularly but always get rejects and never got around to > > looking into fixing them. Probably the git-thumb tree is based on an > > ARM git tree so I'd need to generate the diff reletive to that tree. > > But I just haven't got onto it, sorry. > > I only based the for-akpm branch on your latest -mm tree release but > since you are rebasing your tree with every release, the base of my tree > (currently 2.6.26-rc8-mm1) is probably not an ancestor of your > development branch, hence the merging errors. > > To minimise the conflicts, what commit or tag id do you base your > current development branch on? err, it's not that simple. I just maintain plain old patches against linux-next. Most git trees are based on current Linus mainline. > > > Russell (and others in the ARM community), are you OK with this set of > > > patches being merged into 2.6.28 mainline (i.e. at the next merging > > > window)? If yes, do you acknowledge the patches? In the meantime, I can > > > rebase them on top of linux-next to check for possible merge conflicts > > > (or even ask for them to be pulled into linux-next). > > > > yup, we should maintain the tree in linux-next if it's for 2.6.28. > > I'm waiting for Russell to ack the patches first. > Well. Rather than doing things sequentially we could go parallel. Russell could say "I'll look at them before 2.6.28 but please put them into linux-next meanwhile".