From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kmemcheck tree with the x86 tree Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:53:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20090123155340.GC16064@elte.hu> References: <20090123154409.e3d1cd1d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1232720514.6094.61.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:36932 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756277AbZAWPx6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:53:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1232720514.6094.61.camel@penberg-laptop> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Vegard Nossum , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin * Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 15:44 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the kmemcheck tree got a conflict in > > arch/x86/mm/fault.c between commit do_page_fault ("x86: optimise x86's > > do_page_fault (C entry point for the page fault path)") from the x86 tree > > and commit 787ecfaa503dc63ff1831ddc74b15dad49bace1d ("x86: add hooks for > > kmemcheck") from the kmemcheck tree. > > > > I fixed it up (see below) but it is worth a check. I can carry the fix > > as necessary. > > Looks good to me. Vegard? it's resolved in tip/master already. Stephen, could you please only report conflict resolutions that you do if they differ from the one done in tip/master? Or use tip/auto-latest that has all these conflict resolutions integrated into a single package. A lot of internal conflicts between -tip originated trees get reported again and again as genuine conflicts - needlessly in 99% of the cases as i've already done the conflict resolution myself days (sometimes weeks) ahead of the linux-next resolution, and tested the end result in tip/master. Ingo