Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tiny tree with the tip tree

From: Josh Triplett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:48:49 -0800

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 07:16:45AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tiny tree got a conflict in
> > kernel/time/Makefile between commit fd866e2b116b ("time: Rename
> > udelay_test.c to test_udelay.c") from the tip tree and commit
> > d1f6d68d03ea ("kernel: time: Compile out NTP support") from the tiny
> > tree.
> 
> So I think a timer subsystem commit d1f6d68d03ea with this 
> magnitude of linecount increase:
> 
>  Signed-off-by: Catalina Mocanu <[email-masked]>
>  [josh: Handle CONFIG_COMPAT=y.]
>  Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <[email-masked]>
>  Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <[email-masked]>
>  ---
>   drivers/pps/Kconfig        |  2 +-
>   include/linux/timex.h      | 15 +++++++++++++--
>   init/Kconfig               | 10 ++++++++++
>   kernel/compat.c            |  8 ++++++--
>   kernel/sys_ni.c            |  4 ++++
>   kernel/time/Makefile       |  3 ++-
>   kernel/time/ntp_internal.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   kernel/time/posix-timers.c |  2 ++
>   kernel/time/time.c         |  2 ++
>   kernel/time/timekeeping.c  |  2 ++
>   10 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> at minimum needs the ack of timer folks, before it can be 
> committed to Git. Or is the tiny tree plan to submit all
> patches to the appropriate subsystem or gather acks, before 
> sending it upstream?

Yes, absolutely.  I planned to send out a tinification patch review
series later this week with all 10 current patches (both those reviewed
on LKML and those only reviewed elsewhere).

- Josh Triplett