Re: [GIT PULL] KVM updates for the 3.4 merge window

From: Avi Kivity
Date: Tue Mar 27 2012 - 03:31:12 EST

On 03/26/2012 06:21 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Say a fix comes in which needs to be mainlined during -rc. So
> > I put it in some other branch, to be sent off to Linus in a
> > few days after maturing a little. Meanwhile developers see an
> > incomplete tree, since that patch is not in it.
> >
> > Once Linus pulls, I can merge it back (or even before, if I'm
> > reasonably certain it's not going to change), but it leaves a
> > history of unneeded merges. Or we can do throwaway merges
> > like tip.git.
> We don't do throwaway merges in the -tip development branches
> themselves, i.e. in tip:sched/core, tip:perf/core,
> tip:timers/core, etc.
> When a fix goes into tip:sched/urgent then until Linus merges it
> it's not in tip:sched/core. 99% of the fixes don't *have to* go
> into sched/core straight away.
> In the odd case where there's some dependency, we can manually
> merge it into tip:sched/core ahead of Linus pulling into an -rc.
> Those rare merges are not a problem, and I explain the reason in
> the merge commit itself.
> If you look at:
> gll v3.2..v3.3 | grep -E '/urgent.*/core'
> you'll see that I only had to do it once in the previous cycle:
> d6c1c49de577 Merge branch 'perf/urgent' into perf/core
> and the changelog explains the background:
> Merge reason: Add these cherry-picked commits so that future changes
> on perf/core don't conflict.
> it was a rare, oddball situation where we cherry-picked
> perf/core changes into perf/urgent. Extra merges are perfectly
> fine in that case.
> The 'throwaway' tip:master branch you are probably referring to
> is basically just a testing branch, a convenient merged tree of
> the one dozen maintainer trees that are hosted in -tip. Since we
> don't want to force Linus's hand of him being able to reject
> individual trees we don't merge them properly - hence the
> integrated tree is a throwaway tree in theory.
> In practice I tend to throw it away only once per cycle, around
> -rc1, once all pending trees went to Linus. tip:master is not
> used for any Git based contribution work - it's for testing,
> it's for people who want to work with patches - the commits
> themselves always go into persistent non-rebasing, append-only
> Git trees.
> If we mess up bisectability we do a delta fix. When choosing
> between somewhat better bisectability and a proper history that
> others can rely on then proper history wins hands down.

Okay, we'll adopt a similar workflow for the future.

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at