From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757021Ab3FSRWD (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:03 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34904 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756717Ab3FSRWA (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:22:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:21:41 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Robin Holt , Russell King , Russ Anderson , "H. Peter Anvin" , Guan Xuetao , Linux Kernel Mailing List , the arch/x86 maintainers , Arm Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH -v11 resend 10/11] arm, change reboot_mode to use enum reboot_mode Message-Id: <20130619102141.411c8e39.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <12642293.RmlRtOVM54@wuerfel> References: <1370519244-49918-1-git-send-email-holt@sgi.com> <1370519244-49918-11-git-send-email-holt@sgi.com> <4169120.1k31YLDD12@wuerfel> <12642293.RmlRtOVM54@wuerfel> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:52:02 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 19 June 2013 12:58:10 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 06 June 2013 06:47:23 Robin Holt wrote: > > > Preparing to move the parsing of reboot= to generic kernel code > > > forces the change in reboot_mode handling to use the enum. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Robin Holt > > > To: Andrew Morton > > > Cc: Russell King > > > Cc: Russ Anderson > > > Cc: Robin Holt > > > Cc: H. Peter Anvin > > > Cc: Guan Xuetao > > > Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List > > > Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers > > > Cc: Arm Mailing List > > > Acked-by: Russell King > > > > Should we merge this through the arm-soc tree? > > > > I'm getting a few conflicts with new platforms getting added > > using the old interface. > > Hmm, I realized after sending it that this patch depends on > at least one other patch to add the 'enum'. Any suggestions > for how to handle that? This patchset gets a lot of rejects which I keep on fixing up. Please merge up early in the merge window and compile-test (and review) the linux-next changes to make sure I didn't muck up the reject-fixing, then we should be fine.