Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 12

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:04:49 +1100

Hi Paul,

On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:49:17 +0100 Paul Bolle <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > $ git checkout master
> > $ git reset --hard stable
> > [...]
> > Merging akpm-current/current (35ac317b788c shmdt: use i_size_read() instead of ->i_size)
> > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in tools/testing/selftests/Makefile
> > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in mm/page_alloc.c
> > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in mm/memcontrol.c
> > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in mm/hugetlb.c
> > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in kernel/printk/printk.c
> > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in kernel/exit.c
> > CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in init/main.c
> 
> I think the conflict resolution here can be found in your merge commit
> bcab756e1d32 ("Merge branch 'akpm-current/current'").
> 
> For some reason it removes the only check for CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK. I
> only noticed because that makes the Kconfig entry INIT_FALLBACK a nop.
> That check and Kconfig entry were added in commit 6ef4536e2f19 ("init:
> allow CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK=n to disable defaults if init= fails"). That
> commit debuted in today's linux-next.

That patch has been in linux-next since Dec 3 as commit 77a4494388ab in
Andrew's patch set (and maybe earlier).  However, also in Adnrew's
patch set is another patch ("init: remove CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK") that
then removes CONFIG_INIT_FALLBACK.  There is a conflict because the
first has gone into Linus' tree today (as commit 6ef4536e2f19), but the
second has not (I don't know why not).

Hmmm, I would have expected the Kconfig entry to be removed as well,
but either I missed that, or git is not as clever as I expect it to be.

> Anyhow, I'm sure this all will be sorted out in due time.

I hope so.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    [email-masked]