lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with the tip tree
    On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:24:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >
    > * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi Konrad,
    > > >
    > > > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
    > > > kernel/irq/manage.c between commit
    > > > dc5f219e88294b93009eef946251251ffffb6d60 ("genirq: Add
    > > > IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the tip tree and commit
    > > > c6c5596743c2a333a8e31b0247f44cd367484a5e ("genirq: Add
    > > > IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the xen-two tree.
    > > >
    > > > Despite having the same Author time stamps, these commits are not quite the
    > > > same. I used the version from the tip tree which kept the line:
    > > >
    > > > desc->status &= ~IRQ_SUSPENDED;
    > >
    > > That's the correct one. I fear I messed up, when I gave xen folks the
    > > git url to pull from. I had the first version pushed out, and zapped
    > > right away when I noticed the missing line. Then fixed it and
    > > repushed. I should have checked git://..... which obviously had
    > > already picked up the borked one and did not pick up the correct one
    > > before xen folks pulled. Sorry about that.
    >
    > The resolution would be for the Xen tree to pull again and pick the new commit's
    > content as the conflict resolution result. That will resolve the linux-next conflict
    > as well.

    Should be all fixed now.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-02-10 16:29    [W:0.022 / U:31.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site