Re: linux-next build conflict between modules and metag trees (LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE)

Stephen Rothwell
2013-02-08T05:45:24Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1639 bytes --]

Hi Vineet,

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:46:24 +0530 Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 07 February 2013 04:46 PM, James Hogan wrote:
> >
> > The metag architecture tree adds an add_taint(TAINT_DIE) like other
> > architectures do, and the modules-next tree adds the
> > LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE flag to all uses of add_taint (but obviously
> > misses arch/metag since it doesn't exist yet), causing a compile error
> > on metag in -next when the two are merged together.
> >
> > Is it okay for me to merge your commit 373d4d0 ("taint: add explicit
> > flag to show whether lock dep is still OK.") in modules-next into the
> > base of the metag tree and expect it not to be rebased, so that I can
> > then squash the fix into the metag tree?
> >
> > The only commits this would include are:
> > $ git log --oneline linus/master..373d4d0
> > 373d4d0 taint: add explicit flag to show whether lock dep is still OK.
> > 64748a2 module: printk message when module signature fail taints kernel.
>
> Being in the same situation as metag (ARC Port), what's the recommended practice
> here - do we simply cherry-pick these changes into our tree - or do we merge the
> "other" tree on top - ofcourse with premise that "other" tree will not rebase.

Merging is better, as then the commits only exist once when your tree
gets merged back into Linus' tree. However, such a merge should explain
why it is being done. Assuming that the thing you merge does not get
rebased - which in this case, Rusty has said it won;t be.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]