From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:30:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20081113.203059.225040990.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20081114151317.8ab89475.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081114152054.e448fde8.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:40908 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751160AbYKNEa7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:30:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081114152054.e448fde8.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: sfr@canb.auug.org.au Cc: rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com, markmc@redhat.com From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:20:54 +1100 > I guess the way forward (easiest for me :-)) is for Rusty's tree to use > netdev_priv() in that one last place in virtio_net.c and for Dave to > apply a patch to his tree that reverts just the virtio_net.c part of the > conflicting commit. > > I think that will remove any conflict between the trees. Thoughts? I'm open to just about anything that doesn't involve rebasing my tree :)