From: Ursula Braun <ubraun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:07:03 +0200 > On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 04:43 -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Ursula Braun <ubraun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:39:16 +0200 >> >> > the af_iucv-patches sent today apply to net-next-2.6 without pulling >> > yesterday's patches for net-2.6. >> > >> > If you prefer to pull net-2.6 first (in order to avoid potential future >> > merge conflicts), I can rebuild and resend today's net-next-2.6 patches >> > based on yesterday's af_iucv patches for net-2.6. >> >> I applied them all, then pulled net-2.6 into net-next-2.6 to >> resolve the conflicts. >> >> Please make sure I did the right thing :-) > > Dave, > > net/iucv/af_iucv.c in net-next-2.6 is almost correct. 4 lines should > still be deleted. These are the remaining changes: Please provide a signoff even for fixes like this next time. > /* receive/dequeue next skb: > * the function understands MSG_PEEK and, thus, does not dequeue skb > */ Newline added by your email client corrupted the patch. I fixed this up when applying. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
