From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pci tree with the pci-current tree Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:09:31 -0800 Message-ID: <200902060909.32549.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> References: <20090206135041.fd7a8e7e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from outbound-mail-127.bluehost.com ([67.222.38.27]:44487 "HELO outbound-mail-127.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752893AbZBFRQO (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:16:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090206135041.fd7a8e7e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" On Thursday, February 5, 2009 6:50 pm Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jesse, > > Today's linux-next merge of the pci tree got a conflict in > drivers/pci/pcie/portdrv_pci.c between commit > 27be54a65c89c4b4aa9b25fc6fba31ffd01a08ca ("PCI: PCIe portdrv: Simplify > suspend and resume") from the pci-current tree and commit > 120d3f44dd4c7a16ac71f26d4ff44ad7498cb81a ("PCI: PCIe portdrv: Implement > pm object") from the pci tree. > > I fixed it up (I used the pci tree version) and assume it will be fixed in > the pci tree soon. Oops yeah, thanks for bringing this up. I didn't rebase my linux-next branch on top of my for-linus branch with the last set of changes... Will do. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center