Re: Fwd: linux-next: manual merge of the luto-misc tree with the tip tree

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> 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.)
>

Are you planning on pulling that version?  In the mean time, I removed
it from -next so that there won't be a pointless conflict depending on
which version you pull.

Thanks,
Andy

> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC