On 08/02/13 03:17, Rusty Russell wrote:
> James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Hi Rusty,
>>
>> The metag architecture tree adds an add_taint(TAINT_DIE) like other
>> architectures do, and the modules-next tree adds the
>> LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE flag to all uses of add_taint (but obviously
>> misses arch/metag since it doesn't exist yet), causing a compile error
>> on metag in -next when the two are merged together.
>>
>> Is it okay for me to merge your commit 373d4d0 ("taint: add explicit
>> flag to show whether lock dep is still OK.") in modules-next into the
>> base of the metag tree and expect it not to be rebased, so that I can
>> then squash the fix into the metag tree?
>
> This was my fault for taking a shortcut. I should have changed the name
> so the old add_taint worked still (set_taint?), then remove add_taint
> after the merge.
>
> But I won't be rebasing, so you should be fine to merge it.
No worries.
Thanks
James
--
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
