2010/7/28 Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:11:19AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hi Dan,
>> >
>> > Today's linux-next merge of the async_tx tree got a conflict in
>> > arch/arm/mach-ux500/devices-db8500.c between commit
>> > 6055930cba8fdb2c8855b32bae262aaf69c1fdb4 ("ARM: 6266/1: ux500: add
>> > separate irq lists for DB8500 and DB5500") from the arm tree and commit
>> > 5aa12e8c9c57741606e52f43e62ab1b9dc8e9dcc ("DMAENGINE: ste_dma40: arch
>> > updates for LCLA and LCPA") from the async_tx tree.
>> >
>> > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
>> > --
>>
>> Thanks Stephen!
>>
>> Russell, the dma40 driver updates and related arch fixups have been
>> sitting in next for a month, I'd prefer not to lose this baseline.
>> Assuming this change is brand new any chance the dma40 specific part
>> of this patch can be peeled off and sent through my tree, or are you
>> in a similar "can't/won't" rebase position?
>
> I don't see how the change in the ARM tree could be reasonably split.
> Up to Rabin/Linus to decide what they want to do about this.
Actually the way subsystem maintainers fix up conflicts and resolve them
is a bit of opaque to me, I'd be happy to help in any way possible.
Isn't it so that whoever hits the merge window first goes in and the
other apply Stephens patch before issuing any pull request and be
done with it? That was my naïve idea about these things...
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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
