From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: josh@joshtriplett.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tiny tree with the tip tree Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:04:33 -0800 Message-ID: <20141126000433.GA25720@cloud> References: <20141125101044.GA20465@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:56151 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751045AbaKZAEk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:04:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141125101044.GA20465@gmail.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz , Catalina Mocanu On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:10:44AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 07:16:45AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi Josh, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tiny tree got a conflict in > > > > kernel/time/Makefile between commit fd866e2b116b ("time: Rename > > > > udelay_test.c to test_udelay.c") from the tip tree and commit > > > > d1f6d68d03ea ("kernel: time: Compile out NTP support") from the tiny > > > > tree. > > > > > > So I think a timer subsystem commit d1f6d68d03ea with this > > > magnitude of linecount increase: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Catalina Mocanu > > > [josh: Handle CONFIG_COMPAT=y.] > > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett > > > --- > > > drivers/pps/Kconfig | 2 +- > > > include/linux/timex.h | 15 +++++++++++++-- > > > init/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++ > > > kernel/compat.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > kernel/sys_ni.c | 4 ++++ > > > kernel/time/Makefile | 3 ++- > > > kernel/time/ntp_internal.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > kernel/time/posix-timers.c | 2 ++ > > > kernel/time/time.c | 2 ++ > > > kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 2 ++ > > > 10 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > at minimum needs the ack of timer folks, before it can be > > > committed to Git. Or is the tiny tree plan to submit all > > > patches to the appropriate subsystem or gather acks, before > > > sending it upstream? > > > > Yes, absolutely. I planned to send out a tinification patch > > review series later this week with all 10 current patches (both > > those reviewed on LKML and those only reviewed elsewhere). > > But, but: _please_ don't push patches towards linux-next that > haven't been acked by maintainers. [...snip clear explanation of linux-next...] Thanks for the clarification, Ingo! Mind if I use your explanation as the basis for additional documentation of linux-next? I've moved the tiny/next branch of my tree to tiny/work, and I'll make sure that tiny/next only gets patches that have gotten all the necessary reviews. - Josh Triplett