Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kmemcheck tree

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the kmemcheck tree got a conflict in
>>> mm/slab.c between commit fccd5095804ffc190cb2371c319cb4f5b2c0ee14
>>> ("kmemtrace: SLAB hooks") from the slab tree and commit
>>> 30532cb3c49a2a9fed94127aab26003c52398a51 ("slab: add hooks for
>>> kmemcheck") from the kmemcheck tree.
>>>
>>> Simply overlapping additions of includes.
>>
>> thanks Stephen! I suspect these resolutions will live in linux-next for 
>> the next 2 months, as that's the soonest there will be a natural merge  
>> between slab.git and tip/kmemcheck.
>
> Oh, I was just asking Stephen what to do with those. If the 
> resolutions can be in linux-next, I'm fine with that.

yep, that's the best i think. I dont think we want to couple the two 
trees.

If it ever becomes hard we could start tracking your slab.git in -tip 
and auto-merge it all into auto-kmemcheck-next and make sure kmemcheck 
branch is merged in linux-next after slab.git is merged, and thus 
offload the conflict resolutions from Stephen to the people who actually 
generate the conflicts :-) (This would be doable and pretty painless as 
long as slab.git is purely append-only and not rebased.)

	Ingo