Hello, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the > changes as necessary. > > I do wonder if the local variable name changes in the percpu tree change > were a good idea? Yeap, I agree it's not pretty but I couldn't think of better way to do it. The changes are almost randomly spread over different subsystems and coordinating pull/push between all those trees and the percpu tree would be too painful logistically, so I think it would be better to channel most of them through the percpu tree and react to clashes that happen (there shouldn't be too many during single devel cycle and resolution shouldn't be too hard). percpu#for-next tree won't be rebased and pulling it into the conflicting tree should resolve the situation. Or if carrying the fixup isn't too painful for you, doing it this way isn't too bad either. I can collect the conflict resolutions and send it together with pull request when the next merge window opens. > I also needed a further merge fixup (see further below). Patch looks good to me. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
