* Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Ingo and Thomas- > >> >> > >> >> There's a trivial conflict in the pull request I sent last week. > >> > > >> > This is your x86 entry code rework pull request, right? The -tip > >> > tree now has the RCU commit it depends on, so could you please > >> > rebase it on top of tip:core/rcu so I can pull it? I'll resolve > >> > any remaining conflicts with the rest of -tip. > >> > > >> > >> Sure, I can do that in the morning. The pull request merges cleanly > >> with tip:core/rcu, though, so is the rebase needed? > > > > Yes, because your changes rely on the RCU change (semantically), > > so if anyone bisects into your commits it might result in a > > subtly broken kernel, right? > > Almost. The parent of my original pull request is the RCU > change that my entry changes semantically depend on, so > bisection should be fine. Okay, that's good - so now I can pull your bits, because the RCU commit is final, no need to rebase. (Because you already based your bits on the RCU change that later on ended up in -tip.) Thanks, Ingo -- 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
