From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the slab tree Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:46:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4C9B21FA.4050504@kernel.org> References: <20100923134414.7aa7f696.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:59929 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752092Ab0IWJsA (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:48:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg , Christoph Lameter On 09/23/2010 11:33 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in >> include/linux/percpu.h between commit >> 6fc80ef491b981f59233beaf6aeaccc0c947031d ("percpu: use percpu allocator >> on UP too") from the slab tree and commit >> 8b8e2ec1eeca7f6941bc81cefc9663018d6ceb57 ("percpu: Add {get,put} >> _cpu_ptr") from the tip tree. >> >> Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as >> necessary. > > Why are we seeing a merge conflict here? I cherry-picked patches from > Tejun's for-next branch but didn't modify them. That's a different one coming from the perf tree. get_cpu_ptr() is only used by perf at this point so it got routed through there, so the conflict. Nothing to worry about. Thanks. -- tejun