From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the m68knommu tree with the m68k tree Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:19:47 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20111109111519.7d8969103ab32e7e8193c018@canb.auug.org.au> <4EBA26D9.3050108@snapgear.com> <4EBA2DC5.5010907@snapgear.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4EBA2DC5.5010907@snapgear.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Ungerer Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hi Greg, On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 08:37, Greg Ungerer wrote: > On 11/09/2011 05:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 08:08, Greg Ungerer =C2=A0= wrote: >>> >>> On 11/09/2011 10:15 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>> >>>> Today's linux-next merge of the m68knommu tree got a conflict in >>>> arch/m68k/Kconfig between commit d890d7399525 ("m68k/irq: Remove >>>> obsolete >>>> m68k irq framework") from the m68k tree and commit 4e8a9e70dfe8 ("= m68k: >>>> selection of GENERIC_ATOMIC64 is not MMU specific") from the m68kn= ommu >>>> tree. >>>> >>>> Just context changes. =C3=83=C2=A1I fixed it up (see below) and ca= n carry the fix >>>> as >>>> necessary. >>> >>> Thanks. Both this and the previous m68k merge conflict patch look g= ood. >>> >>> Geert: would you prefer I hold off on these 2 patches until after >>> you merge your IRQ changes? >> >> I'll ask Linus to pull them today or tomorrow. After that (and he ha= s >> pulled), you can >> rebase your tree. Is that OK for you? > > Yep, that is good. I wasn't sure if you where looking to push them > in rc1 or in the next merge window. rc2. I didn't want to rebase them to a random point between 3.1 and rc1= =2E Gr{oetje,eeting}s, =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-= m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker= =2E But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something li= ke that. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 -- Linus Torvalds