Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch()

[David Daney]

On 01/05/2011 11:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * David Daney<ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>
> > On 01/05/2011 11:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * H. Peter Anvin<hpa@xxxxxxxxx>   wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 01/05/2011 09:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 09:32 -0800, David Daney wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This patch will conflict with the MIPS jump label support that Ralf has
> > > > > > queued up for 2.6.38.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you disable that support for now? As Linus said at Kernel Summit,
> > > > > other archs jumped too quickly onto the jump label band wagon. This
> > > > > change really needs to get in, and IMO, it is more critical to clean up
> > > > > the jump label code than to have other archs implementing it.
> > > >
> > > > Ralf is really good... perhaps we can get the conflicts resolved?
> > >
> > > Yep, the best Git-ish way to handle that is to resolve the conflicts whenever they
> > > happen - i.e. whoever merges his tree upstream later. No need for anyone to 'wait'
> > > or undo anything.
> >
> > There will be no git conflicts, as the affected files are disjoint.
>
> I regularly resolve semantic conflicts in merge commits - or in the first followup
> commit.

But I am guessing that neither you, nor Linus, regularly build MIPS 
kernels with GCC-4.5.x *and* jump label support enabled.  So how would 
such semantic conflict ever be detected?  I would expect the conflict to 
first occur when Linus pulls Ralf's tree.

I don't expect anybody to magically fix such things, so whatever 
happens, I will test it and submit patches if required.

Thanks,
David Daney
--
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/