Re: MM kernels - how to keep on the bleeding edge?
From: Michael Krufky
Date: Tue Jul 26 2005 - 20:14:46 EST
Andrew Morton wrote:
Michael Krufky <mkrufky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
However, sometimes there are patches in -mm that are incompatable with
-linus. An example of this is "Pavel's pm_message_t mangling" ...
OK. The way I handle an exceptional case like that is to merge the
-linus-compatible patch into -mm and then have another patch on top of that
which fixes things up for the -mm tree. Later, that patch gets folded into
your patch if Pavel's stuff gets merged. Or gets dropped if it doesn't get
merged. Or gets folded into Pavel's stuff if your patch goes in first.
IOW: for a bunch of reasons we really do want to make the "fix up V4l for
-mm differences" patch be a separate patch file.
And I very much prefer that people work against -linus and when these
things occasionally pop up I'll just fix stuff up. It's only if someone is
explicitly working against a patch which is only in -mm that they should
have to care about -mm vs -linus differences.
I think you may have misunderstood me here. v4l didnt make the
patches... You (akpm) did... We included them in our cvs when you merged
them into -mm:
add-type-checking-to-pm_message_t-bttv-fix.patch added to -mm tree
add-type-checking-to-pm_message_t-tuner-core-fix.patch added to -mm tree
add-type-checking-to-pm_message_t-msp-fix.patch added to -mm tree
add-type-checking-to-pm_message_t-tda9887-fix.patch added to -mm tree
Trust me, nobody did anything wrong here, and everything that needs to
be done with regards to this is already done, AFAIK.
I'm just saying it would be handy for the cvs to be able to compile
separately with both -mm and -linus trees automatically. I just sent
you a patch that solves the issue.
--
Michael Krufky
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/