From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the percpu tree with the net tree Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:20:39 +0900 Message-ID: <4B6915B7.4080806@kernel.org> References: <20100203163803.820597d1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100203163803.820597d1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Rusty Russell , Christoph Lameter , Ingo Molnar , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Linus , Andrew Morton List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hello, On 02/03/2010 02:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the percpu tree got a conflict in > net/ipv6/proc.c between commit 5833929cc2ad2b3064b4fac8c44e293972d240d8 > ("net: constify MIB name tables") from the net tree and commit > d3f5fa4075414c7754126fbdc7c8fbd3906db7c8 ("percpu: add __percpu sparse > annotations to net") from the percpu tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. > > Maybe you guys could send Linus a simple one line patch for v2.6.33 that > adds > > #define __percpu > > to include/linux/compiler.h (unconditionally) and then farm out the > patches that add the __percpu annotations to other maintainers. How about just adding dummy #define __percpu in each tree? I don't think git will have much problem merging them. -- tejun