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. > > 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! -- Cheers, David
