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 the rr tree Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:06:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20091119060648.GA15404@liondog.tnic> References: <20091119162354.8800a885.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f221.google.com ([209.85.220.221]:51478 "EHLO mail-fx0-f221.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751359AbZKSGGt (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:06:49 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091119162354.8800a885.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, Rusty Russell Hi Stephen, On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:23:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in > drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c because commit > 4de1ce0c99ff838090d3b57cab8bc6eeb303dda5 > ("cpumask:amd64_edac-cpumask_t-remove") from the rr tree and commit > 2fd9af91b92c10e58993f9eb70300fdff32698fb ("cpumask: use modern cpumask > style in drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c") from the edac-amd tree are the same > patch but there are further changes in the edac-amd tree. So, Rusty, I > guess you can drop that patch (unless something later in the rr tree > depends on it). yes, we agreed I should pick up this patch. Rusty? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.