From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm tree Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:24:46 +0200 Message-ID: <201109271724.46371.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20110927112524.fd0b8f1fe69bc63855ead2d7@canb.auug.org.au> <20110927072517.GB11359@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:63762 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750805Ab1I0PZB (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:25:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110927072517.GB11359@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Russell King Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Jon Medhurst On Tuesday 27 September 2011, Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:25:24AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > > > [I have a feeling that I may have reported this previously] > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > > arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c between commit e73fc88e19d7 ("ARM: 7059/1: > > LPAE: Use PMD_(SHIFT|SIZE|MASK) instead of PGDIR_*") from the arm tree > > and commit 99d1717dd7fe ("ARM: Add init_consistent_dma_size()") from the > > arm-soc tree. > > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. Ok, looks good. > This has happened because I've dropped a large chunk of my tree from the > for-next branch due to some horrible conflicts and some bad workflow > practice in a git tree I recently merged (so this merge which I'd > normally do has been exposed.) Since we have a few conflicts already, I think I'll wait for your tree to go in first and then send my pull requests with the proper fixups. I could already pull in some branches that I know I will have to wait for. Do you generally send one pull request for each branch you have in the for-next branch, or do you send a single request for something that roughly resembles the for-next branch at the time of the merge window? Arnd