[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151231202347.3090c74b@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:23:47 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the tip tree
Hi Michael,
Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got conflicts in:
arch/ia64/include/asm/barrier.h
arch/powerpc/include/asm/barrier.h
arch/s390/include/asm/barrier.h
include/asm-generic/barrier.h
between commit:
d5a73cadf3fd ("lcoking/barriers, arch: Use smp barriers in smp_store_release()")
from the tip tree and commit:
2683de3a1732 ("ia64: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h")
d78113bef3e0 ("powerpc: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h")
25bc870c914b ("s390: reuse asm-generic/barrier.h")
24888a057e97 ("asm-generic: add __smp_XXX wrappers")
from the vhost tree.
I fixed it up (in each case taking the vhost tree version) and can
carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
However, given the ongoing review and discussion, I do wonder if these
vhost tree commits should be in linux-next yet.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
--
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