From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: linux-next: x86/cpufreq merge conflict Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 18:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20080519222604.GC20207@redhat.com> References: <20080519143927.e8b43d39.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:59694 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755727AbYESW0U (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2008 18:26:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080519143927.e8b43d39.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Mike Travis On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 02:39:27PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Dave, Ingo, > > Today's linux-next cpufreq merge got a conflict in > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c between commit > fdbf6c63c1bd250d45a59a6392fa18ccb360837b ("x86: Use performance variant > for_each_cpu_mask_nr") from the x86 tree and commit > ae47c109341198f814767d2f06a1c1e4c7910fb9 ("[CPUFREQ] change cpu freq > arrays to per_cpu variables") from the cpufreq tree. The conflict is > just contextual with the former changing for_each_cpu_mask to > for_each_cpu_mask_nr in a couple of places right next to the latter > changing "cpufreq_cpu_data[j]" to "per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j)". ok, so how do we deal with this? Either Ingo or myself will have to fix it up depending on whoever merges into .27 first I guess, but in the interim, you'll have to carry that diff ? Or should one of us drop a diff, and merge both through the other tree? > I did the obvious fixups but maybe worth a look. btw, I've just slightly changed my workflow for the cpufreq.git tree. >>From now on, pull from the 'next' branch. master will be untouched, and 'fixes' will be stuff that will go to linus v. soon in the current cycle. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk