From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Thumb-2 kernel support Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:10:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1216847422.6550.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20080606173300.7930.31525.stgit@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <20080630125110.1dc5689a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1214901131.29199.31.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <20080701014529.272706d8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1216829155.23395.19.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> <20080723130140.ff016944.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([193.131.176.58]:57344 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754392AbYGWVKq (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:10:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080723130140.ff016944.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 13:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:05:55 +0100 > Catalin Marinas wrote: > > Were the Thumb-2 patches merged in any of the -mm tree releases? I now > > updated the series to the 2.6.26-rc8-mm1 kernel if you still consider > > merging them (___git://linux-arm.org/linux-2.6 for-akpm). > > I pull it regularly but always get rejects and never got around to > looking into fixing them. Probably the git-thumb tree is based on an > ARM git tree so I'd need to generate the diff reletive to that tree. > But I just haven't got onto it, sorry. I only based the for-akpm branch on your latest -mm tree release but since you are rebasing your tree with every release, the base of my tree (currently 2.6.26-rc8-mm1) is probably not an ancestor of your development branch, hence the merging errors. To minimise the conflicts, what commit or tag id do you base your current development branch on? > > Russell (and others in the ARM community), are you OK with this set of > > patches being merged into 2.6.28 mainline (i.e. at the next merging > > window)? If yes, do you acknowledge the patches? In the meantime, I can > > rebase them on top of linux-next to check for possible merge conflicts > > (or even ask for them to be pulled into linux-next). > > yup, we should maintain the tree in linux-next if it's for 2.6.28. I'm waiting for Russell to ack the patches first. Thanks. -- Catalin