On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:32:24 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kbuild tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/Kconfig
>
> between commit:
>
> 0f60a8efe400 ("mm: Implement stack frame object validation")
>
> from Linus' tree and commits:
>
> a5967db9af51 ("kbuild: allow architectures to use thin archives instead of
> ld -r")
> b67067f1176d ("kbuild: allow archs to select link dead code/data
> elimination")
>
> from the kbuild tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
Thanks Stephen, this should be a trivial conflict. Also you wrote one
of the patches :)
Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering
they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will
have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these
kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them.
Thanks,
Nick
