lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for May 23 (uml)
    On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:13:06AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
    > > 2)
    > > Cherry-picked these guys into signal.git, along with the rest
    > > of signal prereqs for them. Merge with next/akpm-base yields a couple
    > > of trivial conflicts in kernel/fork.c (with
    > > sched, mm: Rework sched_{fork,exec} node assignment
    > > removing INIT_LIST_HEAD right next to the place where we add one; conflict
    > > resolution being just keep the one Oleg adds and remove the one Peter removes)
    > > and in kernel/irq/manage.c (with
    > > genirq: Be more informative on irq type mismatch
    > > changing a couple of printks in there; conflict resolution: just remove
    > > exit_irq_thread() in merged variant). That's for-next-variant2. With that
    > > variant we get 5 more duplicates with next/akpm, obviously.
    > >
    > > Stephen, which way would you prefer it handled?
    >
    > So variant2 sits on top of variant1 and you are intending to push the
    > work in variant2 in this merge window anyway? In that case variant2
    > makes sense. The number of small conflicts don't matter to much (up to a
    > point anyway :-)). Also, these cherry-picks are out of Andrew's tree,
    > right (so they are already in linuc-next)? In which case I would
    > probably go with variant2.

    Fine by me... Pushed into for-next, should be on git.kernel.org shortly...


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-24 02:21    [W:7.421 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site