From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the xen-two tree Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:49:41 -0500 Message-ID: <20130220204941.GC4526@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <20130215154551.d11e9d376d30d32b9673e6cc@canb.auug.org.au> <11850955.SHqxVBsJqI@vostro.rjw.lan> <4696812.SKkpQQd9iW@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4696812.SKkpQQd9iW@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Liu, Jinsong" , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org > > > commit 3757b94802fb65d8f696597a74053cf21738da0b > > > Author: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > Date: Wed Feb 13 14:36:47 2013 +0100 > > > > > > ACPI / hotplug: Fix concurrency issues and memory leaks > > > > > > after which acpi_bus_scan() and acpi_bus_trim() have to be run under > > > acpi_scan_lock (new in my tree as well). > > > > Yes, we noticed that and only need minor updates at xen side, will send out > > 2 xen patches later accordingly, for cleanup and adding lock. > > Thanks, but those new changes will only make sense after merging the Xen tree > with the PM tree. Why don't we queue them up for merging later after both > the Xen and PM trees have been pulled from? OK, I've created a branch (http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/linux-next-resolved) that has your branch and my branch - along with the fix from Stephan and then the three updates from Jinsong. Jinsong, please check that I've got all the right patches. I will rebase it once Linus has merged both of the Xen and PM trees.