Hi Boris, On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 08:22:15 +0200 Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > thanks and yes, you're right. The former patch is less intrusive > and we opted for that one since it is really late in the -rc cycle > but the latter cleans up stuff so that code flow becomes much more > understandable. I'll rediff later and sorry for the inconvenience. As an alternative to rebasing, you could merge Linus' current tree into yours and do the merge fixup there. This is not particularly necessary, as the fixup is fairly simple. Though you may want to do that sometime before you ask Linus to merge your tree. > By the way, I see that you're merging edac-amd before tip and I'm going > to need to rebase my tree against tip in the next couple of days since > it depends on a bunch of stuff in it, so could you please switch the > merge order of the two trees so that edac-amd goes after tip? Again, instead of rebasing, you could just merge in the branches from tip that you depend on. You need to make sure that you only depend on stable (i.e. non rebasing) branches in the tip tree, not on the branch (auto-latest) that is actually merged into linux-next. Please discuss this with Ingo. I will move the edac-amd tree to after the tip tree tomorrow. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpt3XY4FR8V6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
