[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120314151444.a34eef495739e13506ac5b1a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:14:44 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the uprobes tree with the tip tree
Hi Srikar,
The linux-next merge of the uprobes tree gets several conflicts against
the tip tree because the same patches appear in both threes and there are
further changes to some files in the uprobes tree.
Merging uprobes/for-next (1fe509b uprobes/core: Handle breakpoint and singlestep exception.)
CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in kernel/events/uprobes.c
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in kernel/events/Makefile
CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in include/linux/uprobes.h
CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
The easiest way to remove these conflicts would be for you to rebase the
uprobes tree onto the perl/uprobes branch of the tip tree (I assume that
all the uprobes code will eventually be merged to Linus via the tip tree)
or a subset of that branch that is the common set of patches.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists