Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1421451 > unrolled thread

linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-06-14 01:50 +0200
    Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> - 2016-06-14 02:00 +0200
      Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> - 2016-06-14 02:00 +0200
        Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-06-14 06:40 +0200
          Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> - 2016-06-14 15:10 +0200
            Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-06-14 16:20 +0200
              Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> - 2016-06-14 18:40 +0200

#1421451 — linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees

Hi Kees,

As of today, there are four duplicate patches (different commits)
in the kspp and kbuild trees.

  Shared library support
  GCC plugin infrastructure
  Add Cyclomatic complexity GCC plugin
  Add sancov plugin

are in both trees as different commits :-(  They have been in the kbuild
tree for a couple of days already.  One of you should be merging the
other's branch, or you both should be mergeing a common branch.

Also, Kees, the versions in your tree do not have your Signed-off-by
(but do have Michal's).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421457

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> As of today, there are four duplicate patches (different commits)
> in the kspp and kbuild trees.
>
>   Shared library support
>   GCC plugin infrastructure
>   Add Cyclomatic complexity GCC plugin
>   Add sancov plugin
>
> are in both trees as different commits :-(  They have been in the kbuild
> tree for a couple of days already.  One of you should be merging the
> other's branch, or you both should be mergeing a common branch.
>
> Also, Kees, the versions in your tree do not have your Signed-off-by
> (but do have Michal's).

Strange, I pulled these directly from linux-next. Michal had an
auto-responder saying he was going to be out-of-office, so I wanted to
make sure the !COMPILE_TEST fix got in.

Sounds like I should merge the kbuild tree, rather than cherry-picking
from linux-next? I will adjust.

Sorry for the confusion!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421458

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Hi Kees,
>>
>> As of today, there are four duplicate patches (different commits)
>> in the kspp and kbuild trees.
>>
>>   Shared library support
>>   GCC plugin infrastructure
>>   Add Cyclomatic complexity GCC plugin
>>   Add sancov plugin
>>
>> are in both trees as different commits :-(  They have been in the kbuild
>> tree for a couple of days already.  One of you should be merging the
>> other's branch, or you both should be mergeing a common branch.
>>
>> Also, Kees, the versions in your tree do not have your Signed-off-by
>> (but do have Michal's).
>
> Strange, I pulled these directly from linux-next. Michal had an
> auto-responder saying he was going to be out-of-office, so I wanted to
> make sure the !COMPILE_TEST fix got in.
>
> Sounds like I should merge the kbuild tree, rather than cherry-picking
> from linux-next? I will adjust.

I've done this merge correctly now and pushed a forced update on the kspp tree.

-Kees

>
> Sorry for the confusion!
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS & Brillo Security



-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421564

Hi Kees,

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:57:15 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Strange, I pulled these directly from linux-next. Michal had an
> > auto-responder saying he was going to be out-of-office, so I wanted to
> > make sure the !COMPILE_TEST fix got in.
> >
> > Sounds like I should merge the kbuild tree, rather than cherry-picking
> > from linux-next? I will adjust.  

Cherry-picking produces new commits (with new SHA1s etc), while merging
(or rebasing on top of the other versions) will have the same commits
(not just patches).

Having the same commits means that they never produce conflicts after
further changes to the same files (unless both sides of the merge make
further changes to the same files).

> I've done this merge correctly now and pushed a forced update on the kspp tree.

Thanks for that.  Now you just have to hope that Michal never rebases
that part of his tree from under you.  (Michal: hint! :-))

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421887

On 2016-06-14 06:32, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Kees,
> 
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:57:15 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Strange, I pulled these directly from linux-next. Michal had an
>>> auto-responder saying he was going to be out-of-office, so I wanted to
>>> make sure the !COMPILE_TEST fix got in.
>>>
>>> Sounds like I should merge the kbuild tree, rather than cherry-picking
>>> from linux-next? I will adjust.  
> 
> Cherry-picking produces new commits (with new SHA1s etc), while merging
> (or rebasing on top of the other versions) will have the same commits
> (not just patches).
> 
> Having the same commits means that they never produce conflicts after
> further changes to the same files (unless both sides of the merge make
> further changes to the same files).
> 
>> I've done this merge correctly now and pushed a forced update on the kspp tree.
> 
> Thanks for that.  Now you just have to hope that Michal never rebases
> that part of his tree from under you.  (Michal: hint! :-))

I won't :). Kees, are you going to keep the patch in your tree and send
it to Linus once kbuild is in? Or shall I take it (which would
temporarily result in another duplication...).

Thanks,
Michal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421929

Hi Michal,

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:01:42 +0200 Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> I won't :). Kees, are you going to keep the patch in your tree and send
> it to Linus once kbuild is in? Or shall I take it (which would
> temporarily result in another duplication...).

Or Kees could send you a pull request ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1422069

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:01:42 +0200 Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> I won't :). Kees, are you going to keep the patch in your tree and send
>> it to Linus once kbuild is in? Or shall I take it (which would
>> temporarily result in another duplication...).
>
> Or Kees could send you a pull request ...

My head hurts. :) How about this: since a pull request would (I think)
end up pulling the other unrelated kspp patches, how about you take
the patch into kbuild, and once it's there, I'll just remove it from
my tree (since it's on top).

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web