From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sched tree Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:36:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20080625093626.GD11524@elte.hu> References: <20080625115553.adf91947.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49199 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753904AbYFYJgo (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:36:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080625115553.adf91947.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org * Stephen Rothwell 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