[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C9B21FA.4050504@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:46:34 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the slab tree
On 09/23/2010 11:33 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
>> include/linux/percpu.h between commit
>> 6fc80ef491b981f59233beaf6aeaccc0c947031d ("percpu: use percpu allocator
>> on UP too") from the slab tree and commit
>> 8b8e2ec1eeca7f6941bc81cefc9663018d6ceb57 ("percpu: Add {get,put}
>> _cpu_ptr") from the tip tree.
>>
>> Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
>> necessary.
>
> Why are we seeing a merge conflict here? I cherry-picked patches from
> Tejun's for-next branch but didn't modify them.
That's a different one coming from the perf tree. get_cpu_ptr() is
only used by perf at this point so it got routed through there, so the
conflict. Nothing to worry about.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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