From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Ungerer Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the m68knommu tree with the m68k tree Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:34:11 +1000 Message-ID: <4E018CE3.7070101@snapgear.com> References: <20110622111256.3857df1e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sncsmrelay2.nai.com ([67.97.80.206]:30496 "EHLO sncsmrelay2.nai.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753372Ab1FVGhU (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:37:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110622111256.3857df1e.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Geert Uytterhoeven Hi Stephen, On 22/06/11 11:12, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the m68knommu tree got a conflict in > arch/m68k/include/asm/bitops_mm.h between commit 17c74432b88e > ("m68k/bitops: Make bitmap data pointer of atomic ops volatile") from the > m68k tree and commit 2cb0d89e66b1 ("m68k: merge mmu and non-mmu > bitops.h") from the m68knommu tree. > > The latter effectively deletes in the file and in doing the merge, > removes the funtions that were modified by the former commit. So I just > removed the file. That would be right. The changes that Geert's patch makes are in my merge patch. Geert: do you want me to hold of on merging the bitops.h files? Regards Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Greg Ungerer -- Principal Engineer EMAIL: gerg@snapgear.com SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 8 Gardner Close FAX: +61 7 3217 5323 Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com