On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * 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.) > Are you planning on pulling that version? In the mean time, I removed it from -next so that there won't be a pointless conflict depending on which version you pull. Thanks, Andy > Thanks, > > Ingo -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- 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
