Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1371150 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the staging.current tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the  staging.current tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-04-05 05:10 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the  staging.current tree Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> - 2016-04-05 06:50 +0200

#1371150 — linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the staging.current tree

Hi Greg,

Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/iio/gyro/bmg160_core.c

between commit:

  b475c59b113d ("iio: gyro: bmg160: fix buffer read values")

from the staging.current tree and commit:

  7e3d1eb123d8 ("iio: accel: bmg160: optimize transfers in trigger handler")

from the staging tree.

I fixed it up (I used the version from the staging tree) and can carry the
fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want
to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1371190

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 01:03:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/iio/gyro/bmg160_core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b475c59b113d ("iio: gyro: bmg160: fix buffer read values")
> 
> from the staging.current tree and commit:
> 
>   7e3d1eb123d8 ("iio: accel: bmg160: optimize transfers in trigger handler")
> 
> from the staging tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the version from the staging tree) and can carry the
> fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned,
> but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream
> maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want
> to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
> minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

Jonathan warned me about this, thanks for resolving it in your tree.
I'll fix it up in mine once they merge back together in a few weeks.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web