From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with Linus' tree Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:22:15 +0200 Message-ID: <20090805062215.GA7732@liondog.tnic> References: <20090805150933.103de233.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f217.google.com ([209.85.220.217]:50824 "EHLO mail-fx0-f217.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753579AbZHEGWU (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2009 02:22:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090805150933.103de233.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Borislav Petkov , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Doug Thompson Hi Stephen, On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:09:33PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in > drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c between commit > 126b67b8d26f6623d199aa59279f2e3243f2144c ("amd64_edac: fix ECC checking") > from Linus' tree and commit 793a2a12b43aba669c8b2604a45f000a394f142d > ("amd64_edac: cleanup amd64_check_ecc_enabled") from the edac-amd tree. > > I don't think the fix in the former patch is required, so I just used the > latter version. thanks and yes, you're right. The former patch is less intrusive and we opted for that one since it is really late in the -rc cycle but the latter cleans up stuff so that code flow becomes much more understandable. I'll rediff later and sorry for the inconvenience. By the way, I see that you're merging edac-amd before tip and I'm going to need to rebase my tree against tip in the next couple of days since it depends on a bunch of stuff in it, so could you please switch the merge order of the two trees so that edac-amd goes after tip? Thanks. > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au > http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.