Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the driver-core tree

From: Catalin Marinas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:32:51 +0000

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 11:15 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the driver-core tree got a conflict in
> drivers/mtd/maps/integrator-flash.c between commit
> ffc86cf850dcd0e181a69c6fa0217d6c7ddf9c85 ("Add armflash support for
> multiple blocks of flash") from the arm tree and commit
> 0b1ea7e6450b3cc2e87d1c7295439483d007bb6e ("mtd: struct device - replace
> bus_id with dev_name(), dev_set_name()") from the driver-core tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below).  

I'll send a separate patch on linux-mtd to make the third argument of
mtd_concat_create a "const char *" to avoid a warning (dev_name returns
const char *).

> Maybe you, Russell and David Woodhouse could
> sort out who should coordinate these updates.

I dropped the patch from my series and I suspect Russell will re-merge
my tree (there shouldn't be other conflicts via the arm tree).

Now the question, where should I send the changes to integrator-flash.c
to? I assume it's linux-mtd with ack from Russell.

Anyway, no matter who'll merge it, as long as it is based on the
mainline kernel it will create a conflict in linux-next. Is the rule
that there shouldn't be any conflicts in linux-next at this stage? The
alternative is to get it merged via the driver-core tree.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin