* linux-next: acpi/cpus4096 merge conflict
@ 2008-06-12 3:50 Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-12 4:46 ` Len Brown
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2008-06-12 3:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Len Brown
Cc: linux-next, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin,
Mike Travis
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 557 bytes --]
Hi Len,
Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a trivial conflict in
drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c between commit
141ad0688adb53094d6f75b39b4b3b0625de0e07 ("acpi: use performance variant
for_each_cpu_mask_nr") from the cpus4096 tree and commit
08a4ab4a5fd58438840524ce22199c6bbd05816f ("ACPI: change processors from
array to per_cpu variable") from the acpi tree.
It is just a context conflict and I did the obvious fixup.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb•auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: acpi/cpus4096 merge conflict
2008-06-12 3:50 linux-next: acpi/cpus4096 merge conflict Stephen Rothwell
@ 2008-06-12 4:46 ` Len Brown
2008-06-12 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Len Brown @ 2008-06-12 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: linux-next, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin,
Mike Travis
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Len,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a trivial conflict in
> drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c between commit
> 141ad0688adb53094d6f75b39b4b3b0625de0e07 ("acpi: use performance variant
> for_each_cpu_mask_nr") from the cpus4096 tree and commit
> 08a4ab4a5fd58438840524ce22199c6bbd05816f ("ACPI: change processors from
> array to per_cpu variable") from the acpi tree.
>
> It is just a context conflict and I did the obvious fixup.
thanks.
it would be ideal if the cpus4096 tree didn't scribble on drivers/acpi --
though I don't know if partitioning those patches is practical.
-Len
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: acpi/cpus4096 merge conflict
2008-06-12 4:46 ` Len Brown
@ 2008-06-12 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-12 15:25 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2008-06-12 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Len Brown
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, Thomas Gleixner, H. Peter Anvin,
Mike Travis
* Len Brown <lenb@kernel•org> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a trivial conflict in
> > drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c between commit
> > 141ad0688adb53094d6f75b39b4b3b0625de0e07 ("acpi: use performance variant
> > for_each_cpu_mask_nr") from the cpus4096 tree and commit
> > 08a4ab4a5fd58438840524ce22199c6bbd05816f ("ACPI: change processors from
> > array to per_cpu variable") from the acpi tree.
> >
> > It is just a context conflict and I did the obvious fixup.
>
> thanks.
>
> it would be ideal if the cpus4096 tree didn't scribble on drivers/acpi
> -- though I don't know if partitioning those patches is practical.
well, it's a tree-wide API change and thus maintained in a separate
tree.
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: acpi/cpus4096 merge conflict
2008-06-12 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2008-06-12 15:25 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-12 18:31 ` Mike Travis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2008-06-12 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Len Brown, linux-next, Thomas Gleixner, H. Peter Anvin,
Mike Travis
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1926 bytes --]
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:18:24 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte•hu> wrote:
>
> * Len Brown <lenb@kernel•org> wrote:
>
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a trivial conflict in
> > > drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c between commit
> > > 141ad0688adb53094d6f75b39b4b3b0625de0e07 ("acpi: use performance variant
> > > for_each_cpu_mask_nr") from the cpus4096 tree and commit
> > > 08a4ab4a5fd58438840524ce22199c6bbd05816f ("ACPI: change processors from
> > > array to per_cpu variable") from the acpi tree.
> > >
> > > It is just a context conflict and I did the obvious fixup.
> >
> > thanks.
> >
> > it would be ideal if the cpus4096 tree didn't scribble on drivers/acpi
> > -- though I don't know if partitioning those patches is practical.
>
> well, it's a tree-wide API change and thus maintained in a separate
> tree.
Just a suggestion for next time (or this time if you don't mind a bit of
rearrangement):
Having now settled the interface changes down you could submit a patch to
Linus for his current tree that defines next_cpu_nr, cpus_weight_nr and
for_each_cpu_mask_nr to be next_cpu, cpus_weight and for_each_cpu_mask
respectively (just as they still will be for NR_CPUS <= 64). Once that
has gone in (and I see no reason it wouldn't) you can send the patches
that only depend on those three interfaces existing to their respective
subsystem maintainers who will be now be able to apply them to their own
trees (maybe after merging in Linus' tree).
This way I don't have ongoing manual merges to do in the -next tree and
life is easier all round when we come to the next merge window at which
point the actual new implementations can go in.
This has been partially done (and more is being done) with dev_name() and
dev_set_name().
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb•auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: acpi/cpus4096 merge conflict
2008-06-12 15:25 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2008-06-12 18:31 ` Mike Travis
2008-06-13 7:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mike Travis @ 2008-06-12 18:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Ingo Molnar, Len Brown, linux-next, Thomas Gleixner,
H. Peter Anvin
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:18:24 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte•hu> wrote:
>> * Len Brown <lenb@kernel•org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the acpi tree got a trivial conflict in
>>>> drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c between commit
>>>> 141ad0688adb53094d6f75b39b4b3b0625de0e07 ("acpi: use performance variant
>>>> for_each_cpu_mask_nr") from the cpus4096 tree and commit
>>>> 08a4ab4a5fd58438840524ce22199c6bbd05816f ("ACPI: change processors from
>>>> array to per_cpu variable") from the acpi tree.
>>>>
>>>> It is just a context conflict and I did the obvious fixup.
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> it would be ideal if the cpus4096 tree didn't scribble on drivers/acpi
>>> -- though I don't know if partitioning those patches is practical.
>> well, it's a tree-wide API change and thus maintained in a separate
>> tree.
>
> Just a suggestion for next time (or this time if you don't mind a bit of
> rearrangement):
>
> Having now settled the interface changes down you could submit a patch to
> Linus for his current tree that defines next_cpu_nr, cpus_weight_nr and
> for_each_cpu_mask_nr to be next_cpu, cpus_weight and for_each_cpu_mask
> respectively (just as they still will be for NR_CPUS <= 64). Once that
> has gone in (and I see no reason it wouldn't) you can send the patches
> that only depend on those three interfaces existing to their respective
> subsystem maintainers who will be now be able to apply them to their own
> trees (maybe after merging in Linus' tree).
>
> This way I don't have ongoing manual merges to do in the -next tree and
> life is easier all round when we come to the next merge window at which
> point the actual new implementations can go in.
>
> This has been partially done (and more is being done) with dev_name() and
> dev_set_name().
>
Sounds like a good idea ... I'll try to restructure future patches so the
common code can be pushed separately and has minimal effect on the base code.
Are there any git options to add a "dependency check" to insure that parent
patches are in place?
Thanks,
Mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: acpi/cpus4096 merge conflict
2008-06-12 18:31 ` Mike Travis
@ 2008-06-13 7:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2008-06-13 7:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Travis
Cc: Ingo Molnar, Len Brown, linux-next, Thomas Gleixner,
H. Peter Anvin
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 483 bytes --]
Hi Mike,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:31:16 -0700 Mike Travis <travis@sgi•com> wrote:
>
> Sounds like a good idea ... I'll try to restructure future patches so the
> common code can be pushed separately and has minimal effect on the base code.
> Are there any git options to add a "dependency check" to insure that parent
> patches are in place?
None that I know of.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb•auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-06-13 7:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-06-12 3:50 linux-next: acpi/cpus4096 merge conflict Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-12 4:46 ` Len Brown
2008-06-12 12:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-12 15:25 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-12 18:31 ` Mike Travis
2008-06-13 7:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox