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 tracing tree Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:46:24 +0200 Message-ID: <20090601194624.GA29610@elte.hu> References: <20090601175539.67317265.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:44463 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752685AbZFATqg (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:46:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090601175539.67317265.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Vegard Nossum , Pekka Enberg , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the kmemcheck tree got a conflict in > kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c between commit > aa20ae8444fc6c318272c643f856d8d8ad3e198d ("ring-buffer: move big if > statement down") from the tracing tree and commits > 9b7ff384ee76ced9638ab236db588a6f13916336 ("trace: annotate bitfields in > struct ring_buffer_event") and 3467e18b1cf34c7d316af5717e7053ce845d014e > ("kmemcheck: make bitfield annotations be valid C") from the kmemcheck > tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. Would be nice if you indicated whether you cross-checked it against tip:master, which had most of these conflicts resolved already (for weeks). ( this has relevance for the x86 and tracing tree conflicts - kmemleak is not in -tip) Ingo