From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967784AbaFQWwG (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:52:06 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]:45597 "EHLO mail-qc0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965497AbaFQWwD (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:52:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:51:59 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: the cgroup tree has an unnecessary merge Message-ID: <20140617225159.GA8838@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20140618084921.07c3b391@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140618084921.07c3b391@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Stephen. On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 08:49:21AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > The cgroup tree has a merge of 963649d735c8 and c731ae1d0f02 both of > which are already merged into v3.16-rc1. Why did you just not use > v3.16-rc1 itself (or the point where Linus merged your tree) (and then > add the other commit on top? That would have removed any chance that > you resolved the merged differently to how it was resolved in Linus' > tree (I don't know if there is a difference, but I have had conflicts > from different merge resolutions in the past). Oops, my mistake. Reset to for-3.16-fixes. Thanks. -- tejun