Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

On 09/13/2011 01:56 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> On 09/13/2011 08:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:54:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:12:33 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/25/2011 04:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Stephen: the x86/spinlocks branch in the -tip tree is obsolete and
>>>>>>>> should be dropped.
>>>>>>> That's a bit tricky as I get a rolled up tip tree.  The best I could do
>>>>>>> is revert the commit that merges the x86/spinlocks branch into
>>>>>>> auto-latest ...  I'll do that for today (unless something happens to the
>>>>>>> tip tree in the next hour).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, let me bother Ingo about it.
>>>>> For today, I have done "git revert -m 1 6f8fa39c81f1" after merging the
>>>>> tip tree.
>>>> I am still doing this in each linux-next, and it doesn't appear to have
>>>> been fixed up the the tree on tesla.tglx.de, yet, I think.
>>> We'll take it out. 
>> Actually, the tip x86/spinlocks was the most up-to-date version of those
>> patches (since hpa had rebased them to a more recent version of mainline).
> Mooo. You tell that after we did a nasty rebase from hell :(

I'd been meaning to take it out of my tree to solve Stephen's problem,
but, well, kernel.org.

    J