Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the wireless tree

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:09:39 +0200

* Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 00:05:58 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > One of these is mine in -tip (0744371aeb).  Please let me know what
> > I should be doing about it.
> 
> In this case, I would say absolutely nothing (assuming I did the
> resolution correctly) :-)  If I can figure it out, Linus can as well and
> will do so when these trees hit his in a week or so.

Yeah. The two trees are doing different things, and both commits are within 
their own scopes - so this conflict is a natural (and as it seems, mostly 
contextual) conflict, not a workflow messup.

If such conflicts become too numerous then it would make sense to first push 
rcu_kfree() interface upstream and propagate all the fixlets via the individual 
maintainer trees.

I don't think that's necessary: so far the fallout appears to be limited, but 
Stephen will (or should :-) tell us if a conflicts become too painful for him.

Thanks,

	Ingo