From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manfred Spraul Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the tree Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 20:59:18 +0200 Message-ID: <5187FD86.9000005@colorfullife.com> References: <20130506135109.9c0b24ea1e22784fb28ae6b9@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.214.54]:45341 "EHLO mail-bk0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755334Ab3EFS7X (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 14:59:23 -0400 Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id y8so1740675bkt.41 for ; Mon, 06 May 2013 11:59:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130506135109.9c0b24ea1e22784fb28ae6b9@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell , Steven Rostedt Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus , Peter Zijlstra Hi, On 05/06/2013 05:51 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in ipc/sem.c > between commit 321310ced2d6 ("ipc: move sem_obtain_lock() rcu locking > into the only caller") from Linus' tree and commit "ipc/sem.c: > alternatives to preempt_disable()" from the akpm tree. I would propose that 'ipc/sem.c: alternatives to preempt_disable()' is dropped. As explained in the commit: That patch is for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT, it should go into their tree. -- Manfred