[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090824085313.GB29804@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:53:13 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the s390 tree
* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 05:01:19PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> > arch/s390/kernel/time.c between commit
> > 6342887c12d79c5a2c8c1de5be6f483e16a2acdd ("[S390] introduce
> > get_clock_monotonic") from the s390 tree and commit
> > 23970e389e9cee43c4b41023935e1417271708b2 ("timekeeping: Introduce
> > read_boot_clock") from the tip tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
>
> I reverted the sched_clock_base_cc rename. The merge conflict
> should be gone as soon as Martin pushes a new tree out.
thanks Heiko.
Note that such simpler conflicts can be kept just fine (i.e. there's
no hard need to revert) - especially now that Stephen has already
resolved it and tested the end result, and git-rerere will pick it
up in the future too.
The most valuable conflicts in linux-next are the ones that show
conflicts that should never occur: which happen due to trees doing
changes they should not do.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists