On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:02 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:22:58 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:42 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Ben, you can adjust your own patches to make use of this API instead of
> > > accessing the i2c_adapter mutex directly. That way, you are no longer
> > > dependent of implementation changes, and this should solve the conflict.
> > >
> > > Stephen, you can then drop your fixup patch.
> >
> > I don't think so, since the conflict resulted from joining two files
> > including sfe4001.c in net-next-2.6.
>
> My patch series no longer touches sfe4001.c, so how would the conflict
> remain?
Because your patch to introduce i2c_{lock,unlock}_adapter() are not in
net-next-2.6 yet.
David, you might want to pull from Linus and resolve this, giving
Stephen a break.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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
