* linux-next: the cgroup tree has an unnecessary merge
@ 2014-06-17 22:49 Stephen Rothwell
2014-06-17 22:51 ` Tejun Heo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2014-06-17 22:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 557 bytes --]
Hi Tejun,
The cgroup tree has a merge of 963649d735c8 and c731ae1d0f02 both of
which are already merged into v3.16-rc1. Why did you just not use
v3.16-rc1 itself (or the point where Linus merged your tree) (and then
add the other commit on top? That would have removed any chance that
you resolved the merged differently to how it was resolved in Linus'
tree (I don't know if there is a difference, but I have had conflicts
from different merge resolutions in the past).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb•auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: the cgroup tree has an unnecessary merge
2014-06-17 22:49 linux-next: the cgroup tree has an unnecessary merge Stephen Rothwell
@ 2014-06-17 22:51 ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-17 22:54 ` Tejun Heo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2014-06-17 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel
Hello, Stephen.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 08:49:21AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> The cgroup tree has a merge of 963649d735c8 and c731ae1d0f02 both of
> which are already merged into v3.16-rc1. Why did you just not use
> v3.16-rc1 itself (or the point where Linus merged your tree) (and then
> add the other commit on top? That would have removed any chance that
> you resolved the merged differently to how it was resolved in Linus'
> tree (I don't know if there is a difference, but I have had conflicts
> from different merge resolutions in the past).
Oops, my mistake. Reset to for-3.16-fixes.
Thanks.
--
tejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: the cgroup tree has an unnecessary merge
2014-06-17 22:51 ` Tejun Heo
@ 2014-06-17 22:54 ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-17 22:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2014-06-17 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:51:59PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Stephen.
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 08:49:21AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > The cgroup tree has a merge of 963649d735c8 and c731ae1d0f02 both of
> > which are already merged into v3.16-rc1. Why did you just not use
> > v3.16-rc1 itself (or the point where Linus merged your tree) (and then
> > add the other commit on top? That would have removed any chance that
> > you resolved the merged differently to how it was resolved in Linus'
> > tree (I don't know if there is a difference, but I have had conflicts
> > from different merge resolutions in the past).
>
> Oops, my mistake. Reset to for-3.16-fixes.
Heh, the mistake was in cgroup/for-3.16-fixes. I branched it off the
wrong base. Thanks for noticing it early. Fixed now.
Thanks.
--
tejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-06-17 22:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-06-17 22:49 linux-next: the cgroup tree has an unnecessary merge Stephen Rothwell
2014-06-17 22:51 ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-17 22:54 ` Tejun Heo
2014-06-17 22:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox