On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Crap like that is just _NOT_ acceptable, and you know that perfectly well - if you > > do this to arch/x86/ i'll be forced to ask for the Xen tree to be removed from > > linux-next and be done via the x86 tree again. > > Hey, hey, hold your horses. This is a wildly obsolete patch that we > were discussing a few weeks ago, but Yinghai did a proper alternative > for the memblock universe. > > It was never in linux-next, and never intended to be. I'm not sure why > it has appeared in linux-next now; it isn't in my branch. I wonder if > it appeared in another Xen-related branch. Let me investigate. I think I merged in my tree a snapshot of Jeremy's upstream/xen that apparently was not meant for upstream at all. And I did that just to solve a trivial 5 lines conflict because my patch series don't actually depend on any of Jeremy's patches. I solved the problem taking the radical approach: I removed the merge with upstream/xen altogether and also removed the commit that conflicts with one of Jeremy's commits. There shouldn't be any more conflicts now, and surely there shouldn't be any more unwanted old commits. I apologize for any problems caused but none of this was intentional. -- 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
