From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 21:57:10 +1100 Message-ID: <20171101215710.3f222e70@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20171101181554.1826e8c8@canb.auug.org.au> <20171101081832.zdehp7ysi5ecwsdv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171101082742.dteg337holmodzn2@gmail.com> <20171101085524.4dcxgaq7kawn37pq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:36731 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751495AbdKAK5N (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 06:57:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20171101085524.4dcxgaq7kawn37pq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Miller , Networking , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Yonghong Song Hi Peter, On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:55:24 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Hmm, I thought having that same base patch in both trees would allow it > to resolve that conflict. A well.. There is a difference between having he same patch and the same commit ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell