From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree with Linus' tree Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:19:32 +1000 Message-ID: <20090416121932.ed354c47.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Thu__16_Apr_2009_12_19_32_+1000_7KcYTGSazXdPd+Up" Return-path: Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:54378 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755412AbZDPCTj (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:19:39 -0400 Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Rusty Russell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus , Ingo Molnar --Signature=_Thu__16_Apr_2009_12_19_32_+1000_7KcYTGSazXdPd+Up Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Rusty, Today's linux-next merge of the rr tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c between various commits from Linus' tree and commit cf2fb1659cb6d1269487f3c9870f045b95e5e3a2 ("use smp_call_function_single() in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c") from the rr tree. I used the version from Linus' tree. The only doubt in my mind is that the test of the return from smp_call_function_single in get_measured_perf is inverted between the two trees. i.e. if (smp_... vs if (!smp_... --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Thu__16_Apr_2009_12_19_32_+1000_7KcYTGSazXdPd+Up Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknmlbQACgkQjjKRsyhoI8yUXQCeNmoeqSBaRXWFOBkY21ew2sMg KgEAn36uaC4k5c6RdQMsm9R32OaGZm1H =NkyO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Thu__16_Apr_2009_12_19_32_+1000_7KcYTGSazXdPd+Up--