From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755540Ab2KZSav (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:30:51 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:57832 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754604Ab2KZSat (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:30:49 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox References: <20121127001320.12439806f19c9b6ccce4e895@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:30:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20121127001320.12439806f19c9b6ccce4e895@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:13:20 +1100") Message-ID: <87624stdx4.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18tBq3FBfvueX1SBiy8uJ74Qm/T5+EC3sk= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 75.135.205.0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 0.1 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Stephen Rothwell X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the userns tree X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sun, 08 Jan 2012 03:05:19 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in kernel/fork.c > between commit b2e0d98705e6 ("userns: Implement unshare of the user > namespace") from the userns tree and commit ("fork: unshare: remove dead > cod") from the akpm tree. > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > is required). Your resolution looks correct to me. This was just of case of two patches changing each others context. Eric