[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110826090619.7588d424798f53a6f3621eb2@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:06:19 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Xen Devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree
Hi,
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:26:37 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/25/2011 11:13 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > On 08/24/2011 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the xen tree got a conflict in
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/spinlock.h between a series of commits from the tip
> >> tree and a smaller series of similar commits from the xen tree.
> >>
> >> I see that Linus is commenting on these patches at the moment, and its
> >> not easy to resolve the conflicts, so I will just use the xen tree from
> >> next-20110824 for today.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks Stephen; the xen tree ones are more current, and I want to make
> > sure I didn't screw up any of the cmpxchg/xadd changes in a wider test env.
> >
>
> Stephen: the x86/spinlocks branch in the -tip tree is obsolete and
> should be dropped.
That's a bit tricky as I get a rolled up tip tree. The best I could do
is revert the commit that merges the x86/spinlocks branch into
auto-latest ... I'll do that for today (unless something happens to the
tip tree in the next hour).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists