From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:50:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20081107095007.GM21867@kernel.dk> References: <20081107171005.31e2a08d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:33446 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474AbYKGJvf (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Nov 2008 04:51:35 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081107171005.31e2a08d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo On Fri, Nov 07 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in > block/elevator.c between commit 2920ebbd65f3e80c318adf5191ac0987142bda80 > ("block: add timer on blkdev_dequeue_request() not elv_next_request()") > from Linus' tree and commit 8b3806453dd25d15a7ca7d537124af14ba8546bc > ("blktrace: port to tracepoints") from the block tree. > > Just a context change. I fixed it up (see below) and assume it will be > fixed in your tree soon. Both of these merge errors will go away very shortly, since I'll rebase for-next on master again due to the recent merge. -- Jens Axboe