From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Szyprowski Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the dma-mapping tree Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:54:09 +0100 Message-ID: <544F3D91.1070604@samsung.com> References: <20141028152444.79bd9fe9@canb.auug.org.au> <20141027232910.952850f8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <20141027232910.952850f8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Kyungmin Park , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Laurent Pinchart , Thierry Reding List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hello, On 2014-10-28 07:29, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:24:44 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in >> mm/cma.c between commit 16195ddd4ebc ("mm: cma: Ensure that >> reservations never cross the low/high mem boundary") from the >> dma-mapping tree and commit 2a70e5a78672 ("mm/cma: ake kmemleak ignore >> CMA regions") from the akpm-current tree. > hm, we have multiple trees altering mm/cma.c? > > I'm a bit surprised that this series was merged, given that Laurent > said he would be sending out a v2... v2 of Laurent's patches has been posted on 24th October (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/24/207 ), but since I didn't notice them to be taken I thought that it would make sense to get them via my tree and send them to Linus during the 3.18-rc cycle. If this was not appropriate, I will drop my tree. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski, PhD Samsung R&D Institute Poland