From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Lutomirski Subject: Re: Fwd: linux-next: manual merge of the luto-misc tree with the tip tree Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:54:19 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20150119170839.2c6b4b78@canb.auug.org.au> <20150119093501.GA4644@pd.tnic> <20150121053410.GA15291@gmail.com> <20150121055532.GA15518@gmail.com> <20150121061642.GD15963@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f43.google.com ([209.85.215.43]:50199 "EHLO mail-la0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754108AbbA0Xyl (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:54:41 -0500 Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id q1so16210195lam.2 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:54:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150121061642.GD15963@gmail.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Tony Luck , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Rothwell On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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.) > 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