From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip-core tree with Linus' tree Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:51:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20090209085128.GA31890@elte.hu> References: <20090209113855.180c03cb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1234140383.26563.0.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:39135 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750983AbZBIIvr (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 03:51:47 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1234140383.26563.0.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Chris Mason Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org * Chris Mason wrote: > On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 11:38 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip-core tree got a conflict in > > fs/btrfs/locking.c between commit > > b4ce94de9b4d64e8ab3cf155d13653c666e22b9b ("Btrfs: Change btree locking to > > use explicit blocking points") from Linus' tree and commit > > cf47b8f3d96b0b8b10b557444a28b3ca4024ff82 ("Btrfs: stop spinning on > > mutex_trylock and let the adaptive code spin for us") from the tip-core > > tree. > > > > Resolved as in tip/master by taking the version from Linus' tree. > > Sorry, I meant to ask Ingo to drop the patch I had sent along for the btrfs > adaptive code. Using Linus' copy was the right answer, it replaces the patch I > sent to Ingo. It was obvious how to resolve it so i did not notify you about it. I generally ping people when a conflict looks troublesome in some way - that's pretty rare. Ingo