* Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 15:44 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the kmemcheck tree got a conflict in > > arch/x86/mm/fault.c between commit do_page_fault ("x86: optimise x86's > > do_page_fault (C entry point for the page fault path)") from the x86 tree > > and commit 787ecfaa503dc63ff1831ddc74b15dad49bace1d ("x86: add hooks for > > kmemcheck") from the kmemcheck tree. > > > > I fixed it up (see below) but it is worth a check. I can carry the fix > > as necessary. > > Looks good to me. Vegard? it's resolved in tip/master already. Stephen, could you please only report conflict resolutions that you do if they differ from the one done in tip/master? Or use tip/auto-latest that has all these conflict resolutions integrated into a single package. A lot of internal conflicts between -tip originated trees get reported again and again as genuine conflicts - needlessly in 99% of the cases as i've already done the conflict resolution myself days (sometimes weeks) ahead of the linux-next resolution, and tested the end result in tip/master. 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