Message-ID: <50353689.6060404@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:44:09 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] ARM: multiplatform: rename all mach headers
References: <201208221253.07278.arnd@arndb.de>
In-Reply-To: <201208221253.07278.arnd@arndb.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2796
Lines: 58

On 08/22/2012 06:53 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I've created this series some time ago, and updated it now to
> v3.6-rc1. The idea is to get us a big step closer to the
> single zImage kernel across multiple ARM platforms by
> untangling the duplicate header file names.
> 
> There are two branches available in the arm-soc tree:
> 
> 1. This series,
>    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/testing/mach-headers
>    This just moves header files around and changes most of the
>    files including them. There are a few remaining drivers
>    and platform files that keep including a generic file name
>    like <mach/uncompress.h>....

FWIW, I merged this with next-20120820, ignored all the non-Tegra
conflicts, and it built and ran just fine on Tegra. There were a lot of
conflicts overall though...

...
> I would like to get the first series merged in v3.7 if we can agree
> on the general approach. So far, feedback in Linaro internal
> meetings has been very positive, but Russell had concerns when
> we first discussed it a few months ago.
> 
> A patch set this large means a lot of churn, and there are a few
> ways we could deal with this:
> 
> a) Put the branch into linux-next now, and have everyone who
> encounters conflicts pull it into their own branch to resolve
> the conflicts. This can be a lot of work, and it means we
> cannot rebase this branch any more.

I did a very quick test of rebasing all the Tegra branches onto this,
and it worked out to be very easy; very few conflicts and mostly just
files deleted in the Tegra tree this time around. One of the Tegra
branches depends on v3.6-rc2 in order to pick up some changes that
conflict with changes made there. If we convert to dmaengine in 3.7,
then we'll probably depend on a later v3.6-rc for a dmaengine driver
bug-fix. Does it make sense to rebase this mach-headers onto a later
v3.6-rc? I suppose I could branch from v3.6-rc2, merge in mach-headers,
and then build on that if needed.

> b) Involve Linus Torvalds in the process and get him to
> take the series at the end of the v3.7 merge window, after
> rebasing it on top of all the other branches he merged.
> This means it happens pretty much ad-hoc and there is little
> testing on the patches that actually get merged.

Given the number of merge conflicts this has with next-20120820, that
sounds like a lot of work you need to do at the end of the merge window,
but I suppose if it's mostly scripted, it wouldn't be too hard to
recreate the series in a short time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/