* 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
