Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i.MX tree with the arm-soc tree

From: Uwe Kleine-König<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 08:40:58 +0200

Hi Stephen,

(I'm responsible for this, as Sascha is on vacation.)

On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 11:44:36AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the i.MX tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/plat-mxc/devices/platform-pata_imx.c between commit 236c4e8be436
> ("ARM: imx: Add PATA resources for other i.MX processors") from the
> arm-soc tree and commit 8354b5d2a1c5 ("ARM: imx: Add PATA resources for
> other i.MX processors") from the i.MX tree.
> 
> The latter appears to be a corrected version of the former (despite
> having the same Author date ...) so I used that.
Yeah, if you look at the commit logs you will notice that the better
commit has an additional comment:

    [ukleinek: squashed in a fix by Arnaud Patard (Rtp) <[email-masked]
    fixing the resource size calculation]

Arnd already promised me to replace the older version of the imx tree in
arm-soc with the current one. The problem is just that kernel.org is
down ...

Do you prefer that conflicts like these are resolved before you get
them?
(I.e. I could have done

	git merge -s ours $somecommitfromthearmsoctree

but I wasn't sure that this is a good idea and so decided to wait until
you write a mail about the conflict.)

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |