* Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:02:25 -0800 Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Yes, I did finally figure that out. Thanks for rebasing the part that Ingo needed > >> so maybe the rest can be pushed. There was a problem when the 'for-ingo' tree was > >> merged as there were mixed up API calls in io_apic.c, but I fixed them in the first > >> x86 only patch. I wasn't sure of what else to do. > > > > You could have fixed them up as part of the actual merge commit. If each > > tree was correct on it own, then the merge is the place for such > > resolutions. > > > > Thanks, I will try that next time. actually, it's a quite obscure place for it and easy to miss (git log -p does not display them by default, etc.) - it's better to have an explicit commit after the merge. 'git bisect next' works if someone happens to hit this bisection breakage. > Ingo - if you need a small patch to make the post-merge tree buildable, > let me know. I can extract that from the 1st patch (that modifies the > smp api). yes, please put that fix as the first patch in your tree that i'll hopefully be able to pull :) Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
