From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 20:20:44 +1000 Message-ID: <20100518202044.a91d7f64.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20100518133710.8b1545dd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100518085613.GU25951@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Tue__18_May_2010_20_20_44_+1000_/JcCR4vjdd=uIip0" Return-path: Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:38339 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756134Ab0ERKU7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2010 06:20:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100518085613.GU25951@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton --Signature=_Tue__18_May_2010_20_20_44_+1000_/JcCR4vjdd=uIip0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:56:13 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: > > Thanks, it looks like a merge/commit error on for-next alone, for-2.6.35 > is fine. I'll make sure this gets fixed up now. So why is for-2.6.35 different from for-next? --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Tue__18_May_2010_20_20_44_+1000_/JcCR4vjdd=uIip0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkvyafwACgkQjjKRsyhoI8xYVwCgowl3aMBsWALlPBJVI6gfuk7K Q/AAn2oO2OE1VE5wKqeqV/zqOk1vU5Kg =vB96 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Tue__18_May_2010_20_20_44_+1000_/JcCR4vjdd=uIip0--