From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:16:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20120313061622.GA24357@elte.hu> References: <20120313110840.7b444deb6b1bb902c15f3cdf@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:39898 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750817Ab2CMGQh (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:16:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313110840.7b444deb6b1bb902c15f3cdf@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Russell King , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Peter Zijlstra * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Russell, > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm tree got a conflict in > kernel/sched/core.c between commit 8c79a045fd59 ("sched/events: Revert > trace_sched_stat_sleeptime()") from Linus' tree and commit 1cf00341547a > ("sched: Introduce the finish_arch_post_lock_switch() scheduler hook") > from the arm tree. > > Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as > necessary. This commit seems simple enough and has PeterZ's ack, but if there are more scheduler patches coming in this area then please send it to the scheduler tree first: we can create a pullable, stable topic branch for it which the ARM tree can then use. That approach would also avoid conflicts as a side effect. Thanks, Ingo