From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [git pull] IOMMU Updates for Linux v4.2 Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:09:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20150624070902.GA18569@8bytes.org> References: <20150623092412.GA25264@8bytes.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:47:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Hmm. My resolution doesn't look the same at all, but that could easily > be due to trivial differences. I tried to make as much sense of the > merge as possible, so I think my merge is fine, but it's also entirely > possible I screwed something up. Your resolution looks good (there is only a missing newline after the declarations in intel_free_irq_resources). The only other difference to my resolution is that you kept the new set_irq_posting_cap() function at the original location, I moved it to a different place in the file. But these differences don't matter for functionality, so everything is fine :) Thanks, Joerg