From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755762Ab1HYWlL (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:41:11 -0400 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]:63237 "EHLO mail.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755725Ab1HYWlJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:41:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4E56CF76.70201@windriver.com> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:40:54 -0400 From: Paul Gortmaker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russell King CC: Stephen Rothwell , , , Jon Medhurst Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the moduleh tree with the arm tree References: <20110825151748.8e41e0ded739187a1432cf0b@canb.auug.org.au> <4E56796F.8090703@windriver.com> <20110825163901.GA467@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110825163901.GA467@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [128.224.146.65] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11-08-25 12:39 PM, Russell King wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:33:51PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: >> On 11-08-25 01:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the moduleh tree got a conflict in >>> arch/arm/mach-bcmring/mm.c between commit 2d5e975b2194 ("ARM: >>> mach-bcmring: Setup consistent dma size at boot time") from the arm tree >>> and commit 9bc7d81e271e ("arm: fix implicit use of page.h in >>> mach-bcmring/mach-jornada") from the moduleh tree. >> >> I can't really relocate the page.h inclusion in a trivial way to >> make this conflict go away. But since the implicit header use fixes >> for arm are independent and don't actually depend on anything in the >> rest of the module.h tree, I can set about to giving these to Russell >> for his arm-next branch anytime. I'll do that shortly. > > For such a trivial conflict, I don't think we need to do anything. Linus > has said publically that he likes to sort out conflicts as it allows him > to have a wider knowledge of what's going on in the kernel tree. > > So, given that the fixup is soo obvious, I don't think we need to play > games redistributing patches - we just need to be aware of the conflict > and mention it to Linus when we merge. OK. I was entertaining feeding some of the really obvious and simple parts of the moduleh branch out to the various maintainers just to reduce its overall size, but in the end I guess that just makes work for me and them -- vs. a single pull request to Linus for addition to v3.2-rc1. I'll just stay the course and Stephen will have to rerere the merge conflict resolution for a while -- something I'm certain that he has automated long long ago. Thanks, Paul.