Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:15:29 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jiri Kosina <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/29] gma500: Ensure the frame buffer has a linear virtual mapping |
| |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > Can you drop the bits you have merged and I'll send you a new set (which > > will instead break the stuff Jiri has in his tree and he can fix it up) [ ... snip ... ] > I will drop the staging bits, sorry again for missing those in the bulk.
Or just let me know whatever you prefer (both now and in the longer term as well).
I can either drop the gma500 bits I have queued now (and stop applying anything touching it, hard rule), or you rebasing on top of Greg's staging tree instead of linux-next (and I sorting out the merge conflict later).
> I am still wondering how come that this is causing trouble to anyone > though -- is anyone really developing real code on top of linux-next > (which should be there to cross-check merge problems between subsystems > and test functionality) instead of particular subsystem tree?
-- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
| |