From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Xen Devel <Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Gianluca Guida <gianluca.guida@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:10:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CC1E18E.9040502@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101022140335.c4a3a48f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On 10/21/2010 08:03 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/mm/init_32.c between commit
> 1d931264af0f10649b35afa8fbd2e169da51ac08 ("x86-32, memblock: Make
> add_highpages honor early reserved ranges") from the tip tree and commit
> 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685 ("x86/32: honor reservations of
> high memory") from the xen tree.
Hm, that change has been completely obsoleted by the memblock stuff from
tip. Oh, I see. Another change which ended up reverting that patch via
a merge got dropped, so it got left lying around. I'll pull it out.
(Not sure why it merges cleanly for me however; I guess because you've
already got the older xen branch in there which contains the merge.)
Anyway, update pushed.
J
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Xen Devel <Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Gianluca Guida <gianluca.guida@citrix.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:10:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CC1E18E.9040502@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101022140335.c4a3a48f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On 10/21/2010 08:03 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xen tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/mm/init_32.c between commit
> 1d931264af0f10649b35afa8fbd2e169da51ac08 ("x86-32, memblock: Make
> add_highpages honor early reserved ranges") from the tip tree and commit
> 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685 ("x86/32: honor reservations of
> high memory") from the xen tree.
Hm, that change has been completely obsoleted by the memblock stuff from
tip. Oh, I see. Another change which ended up reverting that patch via
a merge got dropped, so it got left lying around. I'll pull it out.
(Not sure why it merges cleanly for me however; I guess because you've
already got the older xen branch in there which contains the merge.)
Anyway, update pushed.
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-22 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-22 3:03 linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree Stephen Rothwell
2010-10-22 3:36 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-10-22 4:03 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-10-22 8:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-10-22 18:39 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-10-22 18:39 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-10-22 21:32 ` [Xen-devel] " Stefano Stabellini
2010-10-22 19:10 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2010-10-22 19:10 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-25 4:24 Stephen Rothwell
2011-08-25 18:13 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-08-25 18:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-25 18:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-25 23:06 ` Stephen Rothwell
2011-08-25 23:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-26 2:54 ` Stephen Rothwell
2011-09-13 11:11 ` Stephen Rothwell
2011-09-13 15:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-13 20:53 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-13 20:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-09-13 21:00 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-14 0:32 ` Stephen Rothwell
2011-09-14 0:41 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-09-14 0:48 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CC1E18E.9040502@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
--cc=gianluca.guida@citrix.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.