From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756698AbZKJPK0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:10:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756484AbZKJPK0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:10:26 -0500 Received: from exchange.solarflare.com ([216.237.3.220]:54132 "EHLO exchange.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756390AbZKJPKZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:10:25 -0500 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net tree with the i2c tree From: Ben Hutchings To: Jean Delvare , David Miller Cc: Stephen Rothwell , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mika Kuoppala In-Reply-To: <20091110160246.506b7789@hyperion.delvare> References: <20091026133757.7cf87e49.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091110124231.66141a0f@hyperion.delvare> <1257859379.2834.2.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> <20091110160246.506b7789@hyperion.delvare> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Solarflare Communications Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:10:27 +0000 Message-Id: <1257865827.2834.12.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1 (2.22.1-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2009 15:10:31.0131 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1A40AB0:01CA6217] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-6.000.1038-17000.004 X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.620200-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:02 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:22:58 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 12:42 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Ben, you can adjust your own patches to make use of this API instead of > > > accessing the i2c_adapter mutex directly. That way, you are no longer > > > dependent of implementation changes, and this should solve the conflict. > > > > > > Stephen, you can then drop your fixup patch. > > > > I don't think so, since the conflict resulted from joining two files > > including sfe4001.c in net-next-2.6. > > My patch series no longer touches sfe4001.c, so how would the conflict > remain? Because your patch to introduce i2c_{lock,unlock}_adapter() are not in net-next-2.6 yet. David, you might want to pull from Linus and resolve this, giving Stephen a break. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.