* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Rusty, > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:11:52 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Monday 05 January 2009 14:02:39 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Similarly with init/main.c, include/linux/percpu.h, > > > include/asm-generic/percpu.h and arch/x86/include/asm/percpu.h (though > > > against different commits/trees, of course). > > > > OK, here's the merge as I did it. I've also attached a tarball of the files > > post-merge. > > Sorry to put you to all this work, but Ingo has rendered it unneeded by > dropping the other patches. Yeah, and dont be afraid to ask for it: i can either zap a full topic, or people can pull from it in the Git space. Merging code in a friendly way is generally far easier than letting complex conflicts happen and stacking trees on each other in a conflicting way. This is generally one of the big advantages of a Git based topical setup - we were able to discard a portion of development history that turned out to go nowhere in its current form - without any collateral damage. (And the history was non-trivial - it went back almost a year.) 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
