linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with Linus' tree

linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 542 bytes --]

Hi Borislav,

Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c between commit
126b67b8d26f6623d199aa59279f2e3243f2144c ("amd64_edac: fix ECC checking")
from Linus' tree and commit 793a2a12b43aba669c8b2604a45f000a394f142d
("amd64_edac: cleanup amd64_check_ecc_enabled") from the edac-amd tree.

I don't think the fix in the former patch is required, so I just used the
latter version.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with Linus' tree

[Borislav Petkov]

Hi Stephen,

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:09:33PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
> drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c between commit
> 126b67b8d26f6623d199aa59279f2e3243f2144c ("amd64_edac: fix ECC checking")
> from Linus' tree and commit 793a2a12b43aba669c8b2604a45f000a394f142d
> ("amd64_edac: cleanup amd64_check_ecc_enabled") from the edac-amd tree.
> 
> I don't think the fix in the former patch is required, so I just used the
> latter version.

thanks and yes, you're right. The former patch is less intrusive
and we opted for that one since it is really late in the -rc cycle
but the latter cleans up stuff so that code flow becomes much more
understandable. I'll rediff later and sorry for the inconvenience.

By the way, I see that you're merging edac-amd before tip and I'm going
to need to rebase my tree against tip in the next couple of days since
it depends on a bunch of stuff in it, so could you please switch the
merge order of the two trees so that edac-amd goes after tip?

Thanks.

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/



-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Rebasing the edac-amd tree (Was: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with Linus' tree)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1409 bytes --]

Hi Boris,

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:22:15 +0200 Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> thanks and yes, you're right. The former patch is less intrusive
> and we opted for that one since it is really late in the -rc cycle
> but the latter cleans up stuff so that code flow becomes much more
> understandable. I'll rediff later and sorry for the inconvenience.

As an alternative to rebasing, you could merge Linus' current tree into
yours and do the merge fixup there.  This is not particularly necessary,
as the fixup is fairly simple.  Though you may want to do that sometime
before you ask Linus to merge your tree.

> By the way, I see that you're merging edac-amd before tip and I'm going
> to need to rebase my tree against tip in the next couple of days since
> it depends on a bunch of stuff in it, so could you please switch the
> merge order of the two trees so that edac-amd goes after tip?

Again, instead of rebasing, you could just merge in the branches from tip
that you depend on. You need to make sure that you only depend on stable
(i.e. non rebasing) branches in the tip tree, not on the branch
(auto-latest) that is actually merged into linux-next.  Please discuss
this with Ingo.

I will move the edac-amd tree to after the tip tree tomorrow.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Rebasing the edac-amd tree (Was: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with Linus' tree)

[Borislav Petkov]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 04:40:32PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:22:15 +0200 Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > thanks and yes, you're right. The former patch is less intrusive
> > and we opted for that one since it is really late in the -rc cycle
> > but the latter cleans up stuff so that code flow becomes much more
> > understandable. I'll rediff later and sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> As an alternative to rebasing, you could merge Linus' current tree into
> yours and do the merge fixup there.  This is not particularly necessary,
> as the fixup is fairly simple.  Though you may want to do that sometime
> before you ask Linus to merge your tree.

that's what I'd normally do but I'm carrying some more patches which
have to go to -tip and I'd rather rebase to have a clean history and
all.

> > By the way, I see that you're merging edac-amd before tip and I'm going
> > to need to rebase my tree against tip in the next couple of days since
> > it depends on a bunch of stuff in it, so could you please switch the
> > merge order of the two trees so that edac-amd goes after tip?
> 
> Again, instead of rebasing, you could just merge in the branches from tip
> that you depend on. You need to make sure that you only depend on stable
> (i.e. non rebasing) branches in the tip tree, not on the branch
> (auto-latest) that is actually merged into linux-next.  Please discuss
> this with Ingo.

Yep, it happened yesterday.

> 
> I will move the edac-amd tree to after the tip tree tomorrow.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.