[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110517080939.GD22093@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:09:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, 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,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the wireless tree
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 00:05:58 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > One of these is mine in -tip (0744371aeb). Please let me know what
> > I should be doing about it.
>
> In this case, I would say absolutely nothing (assuming I did the
> resolution correctly) :-) If I can figure it out, Linus can as well and
> will do so when these trees hit his in a week or so.
Yeah. The two trees are doing different things, and both commits are within
their own scopes - so this conflict is a natural (and as it seems, mostly
contextual) conflict, not a workflow messup.
If such conflicts become too numerous then it would make sense to first push
rcu_kfree() interface upstream and propagate all the fixlets via the individual
maintainer trees.
I don't think that's necessary: so far the fallout appears to be limited, but
Stephen will (or should :-) tell us if a conflicts become too painful for him.
Thanks,
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