Re: [GIT PULL] Kbuild updates for v5.4-rc1

[Jessica Yu]

+++ Will Deacon [17/09/19 19:16 +0100]:
> Hi Jessica,
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:01:36PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
> > Yikes, I did not catch Stephen Rothwell's email about pausing the
> > linux-next releases from Sept 5 until Sept 30
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20190904233443.3f73c46b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/).
> >
> > The modules-next namespace patches have been in since last Tuesday,
> > and my original plan was for them to catch at least a week of
> > linux-next time before sending the pull request. :-/ But that did not
> > happen due to the above.
> >
> > So Linus, in light of the above realization, I'd say at this time - I
> > will still formally send a pull request with the merge conflicts
> > resolved with either solution #2 or #3, but merge at your own
> > discretion, it's fine to delay to the following release if you're
> > uncomfortable.
>
> FWIW, when I've run into unexpected merge conflicts with other trees in the
> past, I've found that it's usually sufficient just to include the resolution
> as an inline diff in the pull request, rather than try to munge the tree
> with merges or rebases.  Linus is pretty good at figuring it out, and with a
> resolution to compare with, the damage is limited. The downside of the merge
> is that it's fiddly to extract the changes and see what's actually being
> pulled.
>
> Also, it's not like the kbuild stuff has been in -next for ages, so this
> would've been a late and messy conflict regardless.

Hi Will!

Thanks a lot for the advice :-) The inline diff sounds like a good
idea. This is I believe only the second tree conflict I've encountered
so far so the tips are much appreciated.

Jessica