On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 02:08:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:17:54PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>
> >> It kind of implies that the prep work that linux-next does doesn't get
> >> fully used.
> >
> > I did see that from linux-next. For future reference, what should I
> > have done with it? Added it to my pull request or to the commit log of
> > my merge commit?
>
> Basically, just forward the information along with the description of
> what's in the branch, so that I know to expect it.
>
> In this case it didn't actually *matter*, since I noticed it on my
> own, but particularly if I'm on the road I don't generally have the
> compute power with me to do a full allmodconfig build between each
> pull (I usually do one or two a day), so I can miss these things more
> easily. And if it happens on other architectures, I wouldn't notice.
>
> It doesn't have to be exhaustive. Just a note saying that "there's
> going to be a semantic merge conflict in file xyz due to abc" means
> that I can then specifically take it into account. Even if I were to
> be on the road, I can then check that particular driver out and make
> sure to check that it builds, etc.
Got it, thank you!
> [ Sometimes I also take those kinds of conflict notes into account for
> pull scheduling. For example, back when the kids were small, and I
> ended up having to occasionally drive them around, I used to aim to do
> the simple quick pulls first, delaying things that might need more
> care until I didn't have some driving schedule over my head. That
> happens less these days when the kids are off to college and the sole
> remaining one mostly drives herself around. ]
Time does fly -- my youngest graduated from college a couple of years ago.
Thanx, Paul
