From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net tree with the i2c tree Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:02:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20091110160246.506b7789@hyperion.delvare> References: <20091026133757.7cf87e49.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091110124231.66141a0f@hyperion.delvare> <1257859379.2834.2.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Rothwell , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mika Kuoppala To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from poutre.nerim.net ([62.4.16.124]:61862 "EHLO poutre.nerim.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750830AbZKJPCn (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:02:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1257859379.2834.2.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:22:58 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:42 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Ben, you can adjust your own patches to make use of this API instead of > > accessing the i2c_adapter mutex directly. That way, you are no longer > > dependent of implementation changes, and this should solve the conflict. > > > > Stephen, you can then drop your fixup patch. > > I don't think so, since the conflict resulted from joining two files > including sfe4001.c in net-next-2.6. My patch series no longer touches sfe4001.c, so how would the conflict remain? -- Jean Delvare