From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the tip tree Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:48:39 -0700 Message-ID: <20090820024839.GA4121@kroah.com> References: <20090819175901.59f1af9e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090819233818.GD2875@kroah.com> <4A8CB6CF.3010109@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:60684 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753525AbZHTCu3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:50:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A8CB6CF.3010109@windriver.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jason Wessel Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robin Getz , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 09:37:03PM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:59:01PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > >> Hi Greg, > >> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in > >> kernel/printk.c between commit 4d09161196c9a836eacea4b36e2f217bc34894cf > >> ("printk: Enable the use of more than one CON_BOOT (early console)") from > >> the tip tree and commit e289e7dc72eb6bfce70e2722d97a00f5e02893e8 ("USB: > >> printk: early_printk,console: Allow more than one early console") from > >> the usb tree. > >> > >> I assume that these are trying to do (more or less) the same thing. I > >> have dropped the one from the usb tree for today. Please sort this out - > >> at least remove the usb tree one until you have done so, thanks. > >> > > > > Jason, any thoughts? I'm going to drop your printk stuff from my tree > > now, care to sort it out and resend your whole series? > > > > > > I will investigate, re-test and send a new series to Greg KH later in > the week. The preliminary result shows the problem is a result of a > clash with two different patches in the tip tree. My patch set and the > two patches it collides with context wise fix different things. > > In order to resolve this it appears that the series will need to get > split into something for the tip tree and something for the USB tree, or > we wait for the next pull of the tip branch into the Linus's tree. Hm, I'd prefer to get this in before that :) Let me know what you find. If there are conflicts, we can work it out. thanks, greg k-h