[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120314045544.GA4644@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:25:44 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the uprobes tree with the tip tree
> 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.
Okay, I will go with this suggestion. Infact this is actually easier for
me.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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