On 08/22/2012 06:53 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I've created this series some time ago, and updated it now to > v3.6-rc1. The idea is to get us a big step closer to the > single zImage kernel across multiple ARM platforms by > untangling the duplicate header file names. > > There are two branches available in the arm-soc tree: > > 1. This series, > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/testing/mach-headers > This just moves header files around and changes most of the > files including them. There are a few remaining drivers > and platform files that keep including a generic file name > like <mach/uncompress.h>....
FWIW, I merged this with next-20120820, ignored all the non-Tegra conflicts, and it built and ran just fine on Tegra. There were a lot of conflicts overall though... ... > I would like to get the first series merged in v3.7 if we can agree > on the general approach. So far, feedback in Linaro internal > meetings has been very positive, but Russell had concerns when > we first discussed it a few months ago. > > A patch set this large means a lot of churn, and there are a few > ways we could deal with this: > > a) Put the branch into linux-next now, and have everyone who > encounters conflicts pull it into their own branch to resolve > the conflicts. This can be a lot of work, and it means we > cannot rebase this branch any more. I did a very quick test of rebasing all the Tegra branches onto this, and it worked out to be very easy; very few conflicts and mostly just files deleted in the Tegra tree this time around. One of the Tegra branches depends on v3.6-rc2 in order to pick up some changes that conflict with changes made there. If we convert to dmaengine in 3.7, then we'll probably depend on a later v3.6-rc for a dmaengine driver bug-fix. Does it make sense to rebase this mach-headers onto a later v3.6-rc? I suppose I could branch from v3.6-rc2, merge in mach-headers, and then build on that if needed. > b) Involve Linus Torvalds in the process and get him to > take the series at the end of the v3.7 merge window, after > rebasing it on top of all the other branches he merged. > This means it happens pretty much ad-hoc and there is little > testing on the patches that actually get merged. Given the number of merge conflicts this has with next-20120820, that sounds like a lot of work you need to do at the end of the merge window, but I suppose if it's mostly scripted, it wouldn't be too hard to recreate the series in a short time. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
