From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the s5p tree Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 08:28:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20120103162844.GA26265@kroah.com> References: <20120103180854.e9bff732db50c0fa9afd2967@canb.auug.org.au> <010601ccc9ef$7e784640$7b68d2c0$%kim@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:43936 "EHLO out5.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754038Ab2ACQ2z (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:28:55 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CB220B8F for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:28:54 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kukjin Kim , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 08:20:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > > OK, I see. Firstly, I will rebase my for-next as per your suggestion. As you > > know, I just wanted to avoid known conflicts with driver-core tree. > > Please, in general you should *not* rebase on top of other peoples > trees either. What's the conflict and why do you need that other tree > in the first place? There's lots of merge conflicts with the driver-next tree due to some changes we made there. We'll work them out before they get pushed to your tree. thanks, greg k-h