Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kmemcheck tree with the tracing tree

From: Vegard Nossum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:14:26 +0100

2009/3/6 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kmemcheck tree got a conflict in
> kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c between commit
> a81bd80a0b0a405dc0483e2c428332d69da2c79f ("ring-buffer: use generic
> version of in_nmi") from the tracing tree and commit
> 9b7ff384ee76ced9638ab236db588a6f13916336 ("trace: annotate bitfields in
> struct ring_buffer_event") from the kmemcheck tree.
>
> Just simple overlapping additions.  I fixed it up (see below) and can
> carry the fix as necessary.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    [email-masked]
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
>
> diff --cc kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> index f747364,b1f2f60..0000000
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> @@@ -9,7 -7,7 +9,8 @@@
>  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>  #include <linux/debugfs.h>
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>  +#include <linux/hardirq.h>
> + #include <linux/kmemcheck.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/percpu.h>
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>

Isn't it amazing how we both managed to put our new include in exactly
the same spot? :-D

Anyway, thanks for fixing these up, it looks good to me!

Vegard

-- 
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
	-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036