On Mon, 9 Nov 2026 18:48:07 +0100 "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/9/26 18:44, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2026 14:40:48 +0100 "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 11/7/26 21:09, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > >>> I think we're slightly talking across purposes, so to be clear - I am > >>> totally > >>> fine with you taking any of this through your tree or whatever works for > >>> you and > >>> Andrew to avoid merge pain :) > >>> > >>> I was just talking more generally about how to merge series that touch a > >>> lot of > >>> subsystems and maintainers-who-may-never-reply, etc. > >>> > >>> These are the edge cases that make things... fun :) > >>> > >>> Anyway, I guess easiest resolution here is for you to take the bits that > >>> belong > >>> to your trees and Andrew takes the bits that belong elsewhere? > >> > >> Yes, that's what I did now, applying #1,#3,#4,#5,#6 > > > > Cool. > > > > I'll remove the whole series from mm.git immediately for > > collision-avoidance reasons - let's sort things out later. > > The mm-next merge today still worked (minor conflict on #7 due to one > unnecessary ksm.c hunk I commented on), so you could have likely just kept all > but the above patches. OK, I'll take a look at re-adding things... > > > > I'll get better/more accurate about this soon - I need to set up > > infrastructure to fetch everyone else's trees, do test merges and > > figure out what should be removed/fixed in mm.git. I might just base > > mm.git on everyone-else and always route its stuff ->david. I need to > > spend a bit of time on this and discuss with the mm-next peeps. > > Ack! ...once this is in place!
