From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:36:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20120313083630.GA10131@elte.hu> References: <20120313110840.7b444deb6b1bb902c15f3cdf@canb.auug.org.au> <20120313061622.GA24357@elte.hu> <20120313083310.GA27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313083310.GA27560@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Peter Zijlstra List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org * Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:16:22AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in > > > kernel/sched/core.c between commit 8c79a045fd59 ("sched/events: Revert > > > trace_sched_stat_sleeptime()") from Linus' tree and commit 1cf00341547a > > > ("sched: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler hook") > > > from the arm tree. > > > > > > Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as > > > necessary. > > > > This commit seems simple enough and has PeterZ's ack, but if > > there are more scheduler patches coming in this area then > > please send it to the scheduler tree first: we can create a > > pullable, stable topic branch for it which the ARM tree can > > then use. > > > > That approach would also avoid conflicts as a side effect. > > Please check your mailbox: I'm aware of that old thread, I'd just prefer to hear about your plans patching the scheduler *before* you commit it to linux-next ;-) Please make sure none of these scheduler patches go to the ARM tree without a proper Git space solution that involves the scheduler folks. Thanks, Ingo