From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:53:41 +1000 Message-ID: <20160912125341.0596ed9f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20160912113224.792b24f0@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160912113224.792b24f0@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Michal Marek , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:32:24 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Today's linux-next merge of the kbuild tree got a conflict in: > > arch/Kconfig > > between commit: > > 0f60a8efe400 ("mm: Implement stack frame object validation") > > from Linus' tree and commits: > > a5967db9af51 ("kbuild: allow architectures to use thin archives instead of ld -r") > b67067f1176d ("kbuild: allow archs to select link dead code/data elimination") > > from the kbuild tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > complex conflicts. > Thanks Stephen, this should be a trivial conflict. Also you wrote one of the patches :) Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them. Thanks, Nick