From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Schwidefsky Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] af_iucv patches for linux-2.6.31 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:04:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20090619090426.19969a0b@skybase> References: <20090618075446.890351000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090618.013410.04304670.davem@davemloft.net> <1245329094.14954.38.camel@braunu-laptop> <20090618.111957.70533925.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ubraun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ursula.braun@de.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mtagate8.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.157]:43896 "EHLO mtagate8.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751330AbZFSHEg (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:04:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090618.111957.70533925.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi David, On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:19:57 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > From: Ursula Braun > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:44:54 +0200 > > > sorry, I did a git pull on linux-2.6.git first, and the af_iucv patches > > applied cleanly on my system. > > It couldn't have applied to Linus's tree because all the IUCV > bits you submitted to me for 2.6.31 are in his tree and that is > what created the conflicts. Now I am confused. I just tested the two patches Uschi sent with todays upstream tree. The patches apply fine. Where is the problem, wrong tree? -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.