From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the jc_docs tree
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 08:32:28 -0600
Message-ID: <20181008083228.33ec7c1d@lwn.net>
References: <20181008183840.70ebfe94@canb.auug.org.au>
        <20181008081315.GB6772@rapoport-lnx>
        <6ab76538-b836-3b22-cb29-102c613091cf@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <6ab76538-b836-3b22-cb29-102c613091cf@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:38:29 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:

> > I can do the renaming and add the patch
> > 
> >   "memory-hotplug.txt: add some details about locking internals"
> > 
> > on top of the jc_docs tree.
> > 
> > Does it sound Ok?
> >   
> 
> Fine with me.

Works for me too.

Andrew, what is your preference for mm docs patches going forward?  It
seems we should try to focus them on one tree or the other.  My preference
would be to keep carrying them to avoid conflicts elsewhere, but I can
certainly direct them youward if you'd rather they went that way.

Thanks,

jon