From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:29:36 +1000 Message-ID: <200807041029.36246.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20080703150328.44061d16.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080703055644.GB4863@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:50376 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752576AbYGDA3o (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:29:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080703055644.GB4863@elte.hu> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 03 July 2008 15:56:45 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Rusty, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the rr tree got a conflict in > > kernel/stop_machine.c between commit > > 961ccddd59d627b89bd3dc284b6517833bbdf25d ("sched: add new API > > sched_setscheduler_nocheck: add a flag to control access checks") from > > the sched tree (which appears to also be in the rr tree) and commit > > e5e62fcd081b0837f6210eb4ed022e9d8920bc59 ("stop_machine:simplify") > > from the rr tree. > > > > I used the version in the rr tree. Probably worth a look when I > > publish the tree. > > hm, is there any difference between the content of the two commits? > > The "home tree" of the commit is tip/sched/new-API-sched_setscheduler, > and that's integrated to the auto-sched-next branch. If there's any > update to the patch we should iterate it there. No they should be identical. It's just that my stop_machine patch happens to use it. Rusty.