Hi Nick, On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:16 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulni...@google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 2:11 PM Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > Hi Miguel, > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:47:12 +0200 Miguel Ojeda > > <miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The Compiler Attributes series has been stable for 10+ days. To > > > increase testing before 4.20, I would to request it being picked up > > > for -next. > > > > > > The changes w.r.t. v5 in the LKML: > > > > > > - Rebased on top of next-20180928, which required removing > > > > Unfortunately, trees/branches included in linux-next must be based on > > something stable (usually Linus' tree, but it could be another > > tree/branch that is included in linux-next that does not rebase). > > Linux-next itself rebases every day, so snything based on it would drag > > in a previous version of all the other trees :-( > > I think of this like a branch that's force pushed to. Can't base > other branches or trees off of it cause it's always moving/force > rewriting history.
As I have read, -next is supposed to be a vision of what the merge window will look like after merging everything, i.e. ideally -rc1. For that to work for files out-of-tree (like these ones, which are not maintained by a single tree), changes should be allowed to be stacked on each other; otherwise, we cannot handle conflicts :-( > > > > > > aligned_largest, which was removed by 9503cd9cbaba > > > ("include/linux/compiler*.h: add version detection to > > > asm_volatile_goto"). > > > > That commit is from Andrew's patch series which also rebases (usually > > at least every week), so you cannot depend on it. > > Miguel, you should be able to drop that patch from your set then, > since Andrew's -mm tree flows into this -next tree as well, IIUC. > We'll take up that patch from there. Not sure what you mean by "drop that patch". There is no patch to drop, there is a conflict with a change already in -next. Cheers, Miguel