From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030593AbVIBASY (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:18:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030594AbVIBASY (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:18:24 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:33719 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030593AbVIBASX (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2005 20:18:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:17:38 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: zippel@linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/10] m68k/thread_info merge Message-Id: <20050901171738.49d8893d.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050901171621.33d41b3c.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20050901171621.33d41b3c.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > > Can I assume that the five m68k patches can be split apart from the five > patches which dink with task_struct? ie: if the task_struct patches go in > later, does anything bad happen? eh, forget I asked that. They're interdependent.