From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753406Ab1EQIKY (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2011 04:10:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:54839 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753148Ab1EQIKR (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2011 04:10:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:09:39 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan , "David S. Miller" , "John W. Linville" , Johannes Berg Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the wireless tree Message-ID: <20110517080939.GD22093@elte.hu> References: <20110517131417.731cf095.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20110517070558.GP2573@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110517172103.a196fbe1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110517172103.a196fbe1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Tue, 17 May 2011 00:05:58 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > > One of these is mine in -tip (0744371aeb). Please let me know what > > I should be doing about it. > > In this case, I would say absolutely nothing (assuming I did the > resolution correctly) :-) If I can figure it out, Linus can as well and > will do so when these trees hit his in a week or so. Yeah. The two trees are doing different things, and both commits are within their own scopes - so this conflict is a natural (and as it seems, mostly contextual) conflict, not a workflow messup. If such conflicts become too numerous then it would make sense to first push rcu_kfree() interface upstream and propagate all the fixlets via the individual maintainer trees. I don't think that's necessary: so far the fallout appears to be limited, but Stephen will (or should :-) tell us if a conflicts become too painful for him. Thanks, Ingo