From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Ungerer Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the m68knommu tree with the m68k tree Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:37:41 +1000 Message-ID: <4EBA2DC5.5010907@snapgear.com> References: <20111109111519.7d8969103ab32e7e8193c018@canb.auug.org.au> <4EBA26D9.3050108@snapgear.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hi Geert, On 11/09/2011 05:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 08:08, Greg Ungerer wrote: >> On 11/09/2011 10:15 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Today's linux-next merge of the m68knommu tree got a conflict in >>> arch/m68k/Kconfig between commit d890d7399525 ("m68k/irq: Remove ob= solete >>> m68k irq framework") from the m68k tree and commit 4e8a9e70dfe8 ("m= 68k: >>> selection of GENERIC_ATOMIC64 is not MMU specific") from the m68kno= mmu >>> tree. >>> >>> Just context changes. =C3=A1I fixed it up (see below) and can carry= the fix as >>> necessary. >> >> Thanks. Both this and the previous m68k merge conflict patch look go= od. >> >> Geert: would you prefer I hold off on these 2 patches until after >> you merge your IRQ changes? > > I'll ask Linus to pull them today or tomorrow. After that (and he has > pulled), you can > rebase your tree. Is that OK for you? Yep, that is good. I wasn't sure if you where looking to push them in rc1 or in the next merge window. Thanks Greg -----------------------------------------------------------------------= - Greg Ungerer -- Principal Engineer EMAIL: gerg@snapgear.co= m SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 288= 8 8 Gardner Close, FAX: +61 7 3891 363= 0 Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.co= m