Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sched tree

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the sched tree got a trivial conflict in 
> kernel/sched_rt.c between commit 
> 363ab6f1424cdea63e5d182312d60e19077b892a ("core: use performance 
> variant for_each_cpu_mask_nr") from the cpus4096 tree and commit 
> eff6549b957d15d1ad168d90b8c1eb643b9c163f ("sched: rt: move some code 
> around") from the sched tree.
> 
> The latter just moved some code that the former modified.  I took the 
> latter but added the former's modification (for_each_cpu_mask -> 
> for_each_cpu_mask_nr).

thanks.

You might want to double-check such resolutions by checking that the end 
result of this file is the same as tip/auto-latest [or tip/master].

Or if it's easier for you we could offer an integration branch of all 
auto-branches in -tip that go towards linux-next. (as we do these same 
tip-internal resolutions ourselves already prior pushing out any of the 
updated -next branches)

	Ingo