From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net/wireless trees with the wireless-current tree Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:54:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20091111145431.GE4392@tuxdriver.com> References: <20091111130119.ace8da65.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:47874 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756544AbZKKPAV (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:00:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091111130119.ace8da65.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wey-Yi Guy On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 01:01:19PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the net tree got conflicts in > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-1000.c, > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-6000.c and > drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-core.h between commits in the > wireless-current tree and commits in the net (wireless) tree. > > I used the versions from the net tree except where obvious additions > had been made in the wireless-current tree. The fixes may not be > correct - someone should merge the wireless-current tree into the > net tree. Yeah, these conflicts should all be resolved by taking the bigger hunk. The smaller hunk is duplicative because a patch that has already been sent to net-next-2.6 is going to be sent for net-2.6 as well (to support a regression fix). I'll probably send the wireless-2.6 pull request today. Perhaps after Dave pulls that (and Linus pulls from him), Dave can pull net-2.6 into net-next-2.6 to resolve the issue. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.