On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:24:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Konrad,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the xen-two tree got a conflict in
> > > kernel/irq/manage.c between commit
> > > dc5f219e88294b93009eef946251251ffffb6d60 ("genirq: Add
> > > IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the tip tree and commit
> > > c6c5596743c2a333a8e31b0247f44cd367484a5e ("genirq: Add
> > > IRQF_FORCE_RESUME") from the xen-two tree.
> > >
> > > Despite having the same Author time stamps, these commits are not quite the
> > > same. I used the version from the tip tree which kept the line:
> > >
> > > desc->status &= ~IRQ_SUSPENDED;
> >
> > That's the correct one. I fear I messed up, when I gave xen folks the
> > git url to pull from. I had the first version pushed out, and zapped
> > right away when I noticed the missing line. Then fixed it and
> > repushed. I should have checked git://..... which obviously had
> > already picked up the borked one and did not pick up the correct one
> > before xen folks pulled. Sorry about that.
>
> The resolution would be for the Xen tree to pull again and pick the new commit's
> content as the conflict resolution result. That will resolve the linux-next conflict
> as well.
Should be all fixed now.
--
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
