From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kmemleak tree with the x86 tree Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:13:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20090507111306.GG28398@elte.hu> References: <20090507155444.47dd74ea.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090507092310.GA27707@elte.hu> <1241692671.6648.12.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40967 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753028AbZEGLNb (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2009 07:13:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1241692671.6648.12.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Sam Ravnborg * Catalin Marinas wrote: > > (it's fine if the kmemleak tree has that commit too [it > > obviously needs it] - so there will still be a conflict - just > > the resolution will be a straightforward 'pick the x86 tree > > side' step.) > > There may not be a conflict if the changes are identical (but it > depends on what else is in the x86 tree). They will conflict, because the x86 tree has these changes in that area: arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S | 430 ++++++++++- arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_32.lds.S | 229 ------ arch/x86/kernel/vmlinux_64.lds.S | 298 ------- spread out in 15 commits. Ingo