linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jiri,

The livepatching tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/livepatching#for-next)
today consists of only lots of merges (and a patch that is also reverted).
Please just reset it to somewhere in Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Jiri Kosina]

Hi Stephen

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> The livepatching tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/livepatching#for-next)
> today consists of only lots of merges 

This is a part we keep discussing from time to time, and I still don't 
understand why it bothers you so much. The only reason is to keep the 
branch non-rebasing, because it has downstreams. Code-wise, it's always 
equivalent to what end up being merged, but without the actual superfluous 
merge commits.

> (and a patch that is also reverted).

This of course is a good justification to rebase for-next exceptionally; 
so I've just that.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jiri,

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 01:41:17 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > The livepatching tree
> > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/livepatching#for-next)
> > today consists of only lots of merges   
> 
> This is a part we keep discussing from time to time, and I still don't 
> understand why it bothers you so much. The only reason is to keep the 
> branch non-rebasing, because it has downstreams. Code-wise, it's always 
> equivalent to what end up being merged, but without the actual superfluous 
> merge commits.

The problem from my point of view is that git seems to take more time
to merge the tree into linux-next (I know this isn't much for just one
tree, but I currently have over 200 trees to merge each day).  Also,
having all those extra merges complicates the structure of my tree and
presumably makes it harder for git to merge other trees.  Its also
possible (I have seen this in other trees) for the merge commits
themselves to generate conflicts with (merge) commits in Linus' and
other trees.

Also, I am not sure why you have a branch that ask Linus to merge
separate from the branch you have me merge?

> > (and a patch that is also reverted).  
> 
> This of course is a good justification to rebase for-next exceptionally; 
> so I've just that.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Jiri Kosina]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> > This is a part we keep discussing from time to time, and I still don't 
> > understand why it bothers you so much. The only reason is to keep the 
> > branch non-rebasing, because it has downstreams. Code-wise, it's 
> > always equivalent to what end up being merged, but without the actual 
> > superfluous merge commits.
> 
> The problem from my point of view is that git seems to take more time
> to merge the tree into linux-next (I know this isn't much for just one
> tree, but I currently have over 200 trees to merge each day).  

Because of merge commits the number of which is below 100? That's an 
interesting observation and quite unexpected bottleneck in git.

> Also, having all those extra merges complicates the structure of my tree 
> and presumably makes it harder for git to merge other trees.  Its also 
> possible (I have seen this in other trees) for the merge commits 
> themselves to generate conflicts with (merge) commits in Linus' and 
> other trees.
> 
> Also, I am not sure why you have a branch that ask Linus to merge 
> separate from the branch you have me merge?

Exactly to avoid Linus' tree being polluted by the extra merge commits.

My workflow is really simple -- development happens in (a lot of) topic 
branches, and each and every time any of the topic branches is updated by 
a new commit, that topic branch gets merged into for-next.

Once code should go to Linus, the branches are merged at once into 
'for-linus' brach, and it's guaranteed to be code-wise the same as what 
was gradually appearing in for-next.

What other workflow do you suggest for maintainers like me, who are using 
a lot of topic branches?

If this is so bothering for you, I'd just start instructing for-next 
downstreams to stop using that branch so that it could be easily rebased.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Takashi Iwai]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 11:29:02 +0200,
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > > This is a part we keep discussing from time to time, and I still don't 
> > > understand why it bothers you so much. The only reason is to keep the 
> > > branch non-rebasing, because it has downstreams. Code-wise, it's 
> > > always equivalent to what end up being merged, but without the actual 
> > > superfluous merge commits.
> > 
> > The problem from my point of view is that git seems to take more time
> > to merge the tree into linux-next (I know this isn't much for just one
> > tree, but I currently have over 200 trees to merge each day).  
> 
> Because of merge commits the number of which is below 100? That's an 
> interesting observation and quite unexpected bottleneck in git.
> 
> > Also, having all those extra merges complicates the structure of my tree 
> > and presumably makes it harder for git to merge other trees.  Its also 
> > possible (I have seen this in other trees) for the merge commits 
> > themselves to generate conflicts with (merge) commits in Linus' and 
> > other trees.
> > 
> > Also, I am not sure why you have a branch that ask Linus to merge 
> > separate from the branch you have me merge?
> 
> Exactly to avoid Linus' tree being polluted by the extra merge commits.
> 
> My workflow is really simple -- development happens in (a lot of) topic 
> branches, and each and every time any of the topic branches is updated by 
> a new commit, that topic branch gets merged into for-next.
> 
> Once code should go to Linus, the branches are merged at once into 
> 'for-linus' brach, and it's guaranteed to be code-wise the same as what 
> was gradually appearing in for-next.
> 
> What other workflow do you suggest for maintainers like me, who are using 
> a lot of topic branches?

Maybe refreshing merges in for-next branch at each time (or day)
instead of incremental merges?


Takashi

Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Jiri Kosina]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> > Exactly to avoid Linus' tree being polluted by the extra merge commits.
> > 
> > My workflow is really simple -- development happens in (a lot of) topic 
> > branches, and each and every time any of the topic branches is updated by 
> > a new commit, that topic branch gets merged into for-next.
> > 
> > Once code should go to Linus, the branches are merged at once into 
> > 'for-linus' brach, and it's guaranteed to be code-wise the same as what 
> > was gradually appearing in for-next.
> > 
> > What other workflow do you suggest for maintainers like me, who are using 
> > a lot of topic branches?
> 
> Maybe refreshing merges in for-next branch at each time (or day)
> instead of incremental merges?

That slightly breaks for for-next downstreams, but one can successfully 
counter that by the fact that topic branches should be the only ones 
having downstreams, and for-next should be upstream solely for linux-next.

I'll experiment with this during the next cycle.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 242 bytes --]

Hi all,

The livepatching tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/livepatching/livepatching
branch for-next) only contains 70 merge commits and appears to not have
been updated since March.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Petr Mladek]

Hi Stephen,

On Mon 2025-08-18 12:14:56, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The livepatching tree
> (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/livepatching/livepatching
> branch for-next) only contains 70 merge commits and appears to not have
> been updated since March.

Just to be sure. What is exactly the problem, the merge commits or
that it has not been updated since March, please?

I have just removed the merge commits.

And there have not been any changes ready for the livepatching core code
recently.

Best Regards,
Petr

Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

Hi Petr,

On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 12:32:55 +0200 Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> Just to be sure. What is exactly the problem, the merge commits or
> that it has not been updated since March, please?

The merge commits.  Everyday linux-next contained those 70 merges that
added nothing except to complicate the history.

I don't start looking to drop branches from linux-next until they have
not been updated for over a year.

> I have just removed the merge commits.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]