From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:34:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4C497E5F.80301@kernel.org> References: <20100723144600.dd4da992.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4C497CD5.5010908@kernel.org> <20100723213148.3d2193a3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-next-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, David Howells , Steve French , linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Rothwell Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100723213148.3d2193a3.sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Hello, On 07/23/2010 01:31 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Yes, one failure case is removed, so that would be correct. > > Thanks for the confirmation. This should probably be fixed in the > workqueues tree before it is merged upstream. I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to resolve the conflict. Would pulling in master before requesting pull be better? Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756089Ab0GWLfS (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:35:18 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:49264 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753379Ab0GWLfQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:35:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4C497E5F.80301@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:34:55 +0200 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell CC: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Steve French , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree References: <20100723144600.dd4da992.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4C497CD5.5010908@kernel.org> <20100723213148.3d2193a3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20100723213148.3d2193a3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:34:57 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On 07/23/2010 01:31 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Yes, one failure case is removed, so that would be correct. > > Thanks for the confirmation. This should probably be fixed in the > workqueues tree before it is merged upstream. I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to resolve the conflict. Would pulling in master before requesting pull be better? Thanks. -- tejun