From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net tree with the i2c tree Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:10:27 +0000 Message-ID: <1257865827.2834.12.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> References: <20091026133757.7cf87e49.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091110124231.66141a0f@hyperion.delvare> <1257859379.2834.2.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> <20091110160246.506b7789@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:54132 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756390AbZKJPKZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:10:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091110160246.506b7789@hyperion.delvare> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jean Delvare , David Miller Cc: Stephen Rothwell , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mika Kuoppala On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:02 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:22:58 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:42 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Ben, you can adjust your own patches to make use of this API instead of > > > accessing the i2c_adapter mutex directly. That way, you are no longer > > > dependent of implementation changes, and this should solve the conflict. > > > > > > Stephen, you can then drop your fixup patch. > > > > I don't think so, since the conflict resulted from joining two files > > including sfe4001.c in net-next-2.6. > > My patch series no longer touches sfe4001.c, so how would the conflict > remain? Because your patch to introduce i2c_{lock,unlock}_adapter() are not in net-next-2.6 yet. David, you might want to pull from Linus and resolve this, giving Stephen a break. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.