From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161467Ab3FUHgo (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:36:44 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:65006 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161296Ab3FUHgm (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:36:42 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the mailbox tree Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:36:09 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Olof Johansson , Stephen Rothwell , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Suman Anna , Omar Ramirez Luna , Loic Pallardy References: <20130621162656.bb94e0fa8b6813781b804a73@canb.auug.org.au> <20130621071239.GM5523@atomide.com> In-Reply-To: <20130621071239.GM5523@atomide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201306210936.09593.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:QQwJPoURxJdvFoteS0gWADSc3u9NOItmUw/M2wcnqrh kK9OkuENtlW4sGc0kl2OSLwItv698HrwVDDgBgsJARniLvw1Mm +Hj3Dm2o7RsqQhz/MlMAZE72jcZvq0NTNWztgot2mTExwy2MKQ vpl5q3AqDpiTg8g2FTLaS2+1bNxRkgM8hlYxsitXf2P9/QHASc pHS5Y19h2Mp7CUm3cmlda3R50+MfHKBBsbvlylHzZy9KIWmUEm qidIdYHVPjFOqQE05aYra1o4eDKTWK51tB8XbReW8NCqGdKYnI km8eoXlHg2RP4K/SMUKs3NFY7epZ25F+lySNRsytSX8CO603cP rEG5D6TzYE4R+TrK9U44= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 21 June 2013, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > I wonder if this mess is caused by the fact that I did the revert > > instead of rebuilding our for-next and dropping the merge in the first > > place. > > > > I'll rebuild our for-next (or maybe Arnd will beat me to it) before > > next linux-next build, i.e. Sunday night my time. > > Could be, especially if some of the commits are the same in the reverted > branch and newly merged branch as git might think that some merges have > been already resolved the right way earlier. I already rebuilt the arm-soc tree before Stephen started with today's linux-next, so I think the conflict is elsewhere. It's probably best if Suman Anna rebases the mailbox tree on top of the omap mailbox branch that I took. Arnd