Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:32:34 +1000 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen tree with the tip tree |
| |
Hi Jeremy,
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:53:39 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote: > > On 09/13/2011 08:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> > >> 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 Stephen: the x86/spinlocks branch in the -tip tree is obsolete and 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). > > But never mind. Stephen, could you use > > git://github.com/jsgf/linux-xen.git upstream/xen > > for linux-next instead of the kernel.org xen.git, and I've re-added the > up-to-date spinlock changes there.
OK, I have switched to this from today.
My understanding is this: I do *not* need to revert the spinlock changes from tip anymore, correct?
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |