From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:21:48 +1030 Message-ID: <200901061921.49131.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20090105143239.08b1a060.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <200901051727.11403.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20090105124745.GC29758@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]:59656 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751617AbZAFIvy (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:51:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090105124745.GC29758@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, Mike Travis , Christoph Lameter , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" On Monday 05 January 2009 23:17:45 Ingo Molnar wrote: > That would allow Mike, Christoph and you to work this out cleanly from > scratch. It would also solve your merge conflict. > > Does that sound like a good solution? Sure, but it won't make this window. I guess since those patches don't do anything but lay groundwork it's not critical, but annoying they've lain fallow so long. I'm happy to put them with the cpualloc patches, since they're related and going to conflict, but I still want to see if Mike has the rest of them? Thanks, Rusty.