From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cpufreq tree with the cpus4096 tree Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:25:54 -0500 Message-ID: <20090120052554.GA31797@redhat.com> References: <20090120134713.1fd5fd3a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:44200 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750819AbZATF03 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:26:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090120134713.1fd5fd3a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:47:13PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Today's linux-next merge of the cpufreq tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c between commit > 5cd7376200be7b8bab085557ff5876b04bd84191 ("fix: crash: IP: > __bitmap_intersects+0x48/0x73") from the cpus4096 tree and commit > 6fc619dc092a0a159cf5fb46afa52f2f8128b1d4 ("[CPUFREQ] checkpatch cleanups > for acpi-cpufreq") from the cpufreq tree. > > Just changing context. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix > as necessary. Yep, looks sane. I can't wait for this cpumask stuff to be over with, it's been a pain in the ass for merge collisions. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk