From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonas Bonn Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the openrisc tree Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:02:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1310986975.21015.13.camel@needafix> References: <20110718185608.97377aa900b014aa010830a2@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110718185608.97377aa900b014aa010830a2@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 18:56 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-post-merge tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/include/asm/delay.h between commit 10f53642f115 ("asm-generic: > move archictures to common delay.h") from the openrisc tree and commit > "With a non-constant 8-bit argument, a call to udelay() generates a > warning:" from the akpm tree. > > I just dropped this patch from the akpm tree as the former commit > consolidated this code into asm-generic/delay.h (which doesn't solve the > problem). Applying the change from Andrew's patch to asm-generic/delay.h looks like the sane thing to do. I can do that in my tree and then Andrew can drop the patch from his tree... does that sound reasonable? Just so others don't have to go digging for it, the patch in question is: http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/arch-x86-include-asm-delayh-fix-udelay-and-ndelay-for-8-bit-args.patch /Jonas From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.southpole.se ([193.12.106.18]:56624 "EHLO mail.southpole.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756377Ab1GRLC7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:02:59 -0400 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the openrisc tree From: Jonas Bonn In-Reply-To: <20110718185608.97377aa900b014aa010830a2@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20110718185608.97377aa900b014aa010830a2@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:02:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1310986975.21015.13.camel@needafix> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" Message-ID: <20110718110255.cBT6e5cUPodp8S1GRcE9TbARytmd8WokX869l7Y388Y@z> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 18:56 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-post-merge tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/include/asm/delay.h between commit 10f53642f115 ("asm-generic: > move archictures to common delay.h") from the openrisc tree and commit > "With a non-constant 8-bit argument, a call to udelay() generates a > warning:" from the akpm tree. > > I just dropped this patch from the akpm tree as the former commit > consolidated this code into asm-generic/delay.h (which doesn't solve the > problem). Applying the change from Andrew's patch to asm-generic/delay.h looks like the sane thing to do. I can do that in my tree and then Andrew can drop the patch from his tree... does that sound reasonable? Just so others don't have to go digging for it, the patch in question is: http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/arch-x86-include-asm-delayh-fix-udelay-and-ndelay-for-8-bit-args.patch /Jonas