From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:10:06 -0700 Message-ID: <4CC1E18E.9040502@goop.org> References: <20101022140335.c4a3a48f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101022140335.c4a3a48f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Xen Devel , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Yinghai Lu , Ingo Molnar , Gianluca Guida List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 10/21/2010 08:03 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the xen tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/mm/init_32.c between commit > 1d931264af0f10649b35afa8fbd2e169da51ac08 ("x86-32, memblock: Make > add_highpages honor early reserved ranges") from the tip tree and commit > 07147a06ac3b1b028124ea00ba44e69eb8ea7685 ("x86/32: honor reservations of > high memory") from the xen tree. Hm, that change has been completely obsoleted by the memblock stuff from tip. Oh, I see. Another change which ended up reverting that patch via a merge got dropped, so it got left lying around. I'll pull it out. (Not sure why it merges cleanly for me however; I guess because you've already got the older xen branch in there which contains the merge.) Anyway, update pushed. J