From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net tree with the wireless-current tree Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:01:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20091126130153.GA3697@tuxdriver.com> References: <20091126141055.d8c67798.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1259227989.32372.32.camel@johannes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:36200 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754648AbZKZM6R (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:58:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1259227989.32372.32.camel@johannes.local> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Johannes Berg Cc: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jean Tourrilhes On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:33:09AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 14:10 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the net tree got a conflict in > > net/wireless/wext.c between commit > > 9fed059667d35fca9288460106e92dbb8ba35ea1 ("WE: Fix set events not > > propagated") from the tree and commit > > 3d23e349d807177eaf519d444677cee86b1a04cf ("wext: refactor") from the net > > tree. > > > > The latter deleted the file that the former modified. I just ignored the > > wireless-current change and removed the file (which seems to have been > > done in the latter change anyway). > > The fix should probably have gone to wext-core.c instead? Yes. That's the way I did it in the merge-test branch of wireless-next-2.6. Thanks, John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com