On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > Hi Sedat, > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:46:55 +0100 Sedat Dilek <sedat.di...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.di...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> >> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:46:06 +0100 Mike Galbraith <bitbuc...@online.de> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I hope it doesn't look quite like that, next-20140117 is -ENOBOOT on >> >>> Q6600 box. See below for an alternative. >> >>> >> >>> idle: kill unnecessary mwait_idle() resched IPIs >> >> >> >> OK, so despite even further discussion, I have applied this as a merge >> >> fix patch for today. Let me know when it is all sorted out. >> >> >> > >> > Where is this fix? >> > ( Browsing Linux-next remote GIT repository online. ) >> > 2x NOPE for me. >> > >> > - Sedat - >> > >> > [1] >> > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/?id=next-20140120&qt=grep&q=mwait_idle >> > [2] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/sfr/next-fixes.git >> > >> >> Hmmm... Found this in Next/merge.log >> >> +$ git am -3 ../patches/0001-x86-idle-mwait_idle-merge-update.patch >> +Applying: idle: kill unnecessary mwait_idle() resched IPIs >> +$ git reset HEAD^ >> +Unstaged changes after reset: >> +M arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h >> +M arch/x86/kernel/process.c > > You missed the next three lines: > > $ git add -A . > $ git commit -v -a --amend > [master 65d9a14a9a41] Merge remote-tracking branch 'tip/auto-latest' >
[ I was absent for a while from Linux-next, so I am asking for clarification. ] [ I might be wrong. ] What does that mean? AFAICS you applied an important fix by yourself on top of tip/auto-latest? >> Is this a local patch not shipped in the Linux-next (remote) GIT repo? >> Why is this not in your next-fixes GIT repo? > > Its part of the conflict resolution for the merge of the tip tree. It > cannot go into my fixes tree - that is for fixes to bugs in Linus' tree > until they are integrated there. The tip and pm trees are both fine on > their own, but combined they don't. So this fix has to go into the actual > merge commit for the merge of the later tree. When Linus' merges the > later of these trees he will also need this fix - or a better one - which > is what is still under discussion. > I was asking in general about next-fixes to have a "bootable" (aka working) Linux-next kernel. You see next-fixes as a place to fix Linus-tree, seriously? The question here in this special case seems to be a "logical" (not-working-together) problem between tip and pm. And we are in a merge-window... >> A bit confused about your -next policies, > > Any better? > Not really. You should clarify on what you are doing in your next-fixes tree. Your daily report for Linux-next releases even does not mention next-fixes. Looking through my INBOX Thierry had the initial idea of "fixes for linux-next" when you were on vacation and he took over maintainership. - Sedat - -- 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/
