From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Fwd: linux-next: manual merge of the luto-misc tree with the tip tree Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:16:42 +0100 Message-ID: <20150121061642.GD15963@gmail.com> References: <20150119170839.2c6b4b78@canb.auug.org.au> <20150119093501.GA4644@pd.tnic> <20150121053410.GA15291@gmail.com> <20150121055532.GA15518@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Tony Luck , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Rothwell List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > > >> > * Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Ingo and Thomas- > >> >> > >> >> There's a trivial conflict in the pull request I sent last week. > >> > > >> > This is your x86 entry code rework pull request, right? The -tip > >> > tree now has the RCU commit it depends on, so could you please > >> > rebase it on top of tip:core/rcu so I can pull it? I'll resolve > >> > any remaining conflicts with the rest of -tip. > >> > > >> > >> Sure, I can do that in the morning. The pull request merges cleanly > >> with tip:core/rcu, though, so is the rebase needed? > > > > Yes, because your changes rely on the RCU change (semantically), > > so if anyone bisects into your commits it might result in a > > subtly broken kernel, right? > > Almost. The parent of my original pull request is the RCU > change that my entry changes semantically depend on, so > bisection should be fine. Okay, that's good - so now I can pull your bits, because the RCU commit is final, no need to rebase. (Because you already based your bits on the RCU change that later on ended up in -tip.) Thanks, Ingo