Hi Greg,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 08:37, Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 05:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 08:08, Greg Ungerer<gerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/09/2011 10:15 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the m68knommu tree got a conflict in
>>>> arch/m68k/Kconfig between commit d890d7399525 ("m68k/irq: Remove
>>>> obsolete
>>>> m68k irq framework") from the m68k tree and commit 4e8a9e70dfe8 ("m68k:
>>>> selection of GENERIC_ATOMIC64 is not MMU specific") from the m68knommu
>>>> tree.
>>>>
>>>> Just context changes. áI fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix
>>>> as
>>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> Thanks. Both this and the previous m68k merge conflict patch look good.
>>>
>>> Geert: would you prefer I hold off on these 2 patches until after
>>> you merge your IRQ changes?
>>
>> I'll ask Linus to pull them today or tomorrow. After that (and he has
>> pulled), you can
>> rebase your tree. Is that OK for you?
>
> Yep, that is good. I wasn't sure if you where looking to push them
> in rc1 or in the next merge window.
rc2. I didn't want to rebase them to a random point between 3.1 and rc1.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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
