From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751446Ab1I0PZD (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:25:03 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:63762 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750805Ab1I0PZB (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:25:01 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Russell King Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm tree Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:24:46 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.35-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Jon Medhurst References: <20110927112524.fd0b8f1fe69bc63855ead2d7@canb.auug.org.au> <20110927072517.GB11359@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110927072517.GB11359@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201109271724.46371.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:5rJnEslUJGdc5O2s6AonY7Vwv/hAujpa8E6YWyn87YC ke9MLz5CRhigZPwURH3XbJSG9L4YkhsRTcCbLefmiX5lL7/82/ 7HD2cAeOQx6pSaevvVY+moJYrS2hTZ8nDv3xt7ZbSue1/UgpdK eJMsk/8kp6k6o4nT6AtDEXt3GNevFsnRlBNkh5LEgiY8H5EBI1 6Sew1qo6A7Xf/iTdBLRcFq+VeSdk/N6WaQTKRrdA/QJ+yDRxdy 5wk+C7JCDCSWgpZdIK5HzZ0EbEeb6wSM5ap/jEhthawwrS65Ja y5KPRAN0oocXjk7G/bTloe3fMlWcPIxe34PJBKwsZGpoZVQ+ij bVTrRUofG4/q7XQ2nZG8= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 27 September 2011, Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:25:24AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > > > [I have a feeling that I may have reported this previously] > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in > > arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c between commit e73fc88e19d7 ("ARM: 7059/1: > > LPAE: Use PMD_(SHIFT|SIZE|MASK) instead of PGDIR_*") from the arm tree > > and commit 99d1717dd7fe ("ARM: Add init_consistent_dma_size()") from the > > arm-soc tree. > > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. Ok, looks good. > This has happened because I've dropped a large chunk of my tree from the > for-next branch due to some horrible conflicts and some bad workflow > practice in a git tree I recently merged (so this merge which I'd > normally do has been exposed.) Since we have a few conflicts already, I think I'll wait for your tree to go in first and then send my pull requests with the proper fixups. I could already pull in some branches that I know I will have to wait for. Do you generally send one pull request for each branch you have in the for-next branch, or do you send a single request for something that roughly resembles the for-next branch at the time of the merge window? Arnd