From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Cooper Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mvebu tree with the arm-soc tree Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:57:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20130819205736.GA13964@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <20130819160537.1eeb0a9ebc269def138e016b@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:18368 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750852Ab3HSU57 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:57:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130819160537.1eeb0a9ebc269def138e016b@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, gregory.clement@free-electrons.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann Hi Stephen, On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:05:37PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the mvebu tree got conflicts in various files > between merges and commits in the arm-soc tree and merges in the mvebu > tree. I'm afraid I'm a bit lost... > These merges/commits in the mvebu tree appear to be from a previous > version of the arm-soc tree that the mvebu tree has been rebased upon. > Please don't do that - the arm-soc tree as a whole is not stable. I didn't do anything different from the other times I built for-next. Could you give me a specific example when you build linux-next again? I'll certainly try to avoid it in the future, but it'll be easier if I know what 'it' is. ;-) I'll not change for-next today, and we'll see how it goes. thx, Jason.