* Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Ingo and Thomas-
> >> >>
> >> >> There's a trivial conflict in the pull request I sent last week.
> >> >
> >> > This is your x86 entry code rework pull request, right? The -tip
> >> > tree now has the RCU commit it depends on, so could you please
> >> > rebase it on top of tip:core/rcu so I can pull it? I'll resolve
> >> > any remaining conflicts with the rest of -tip.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sure, I can do that in the morning. The pull request merges cleanly
> >> with tip:core/rcu, though, so is the rebase needed?
> >
> > Yes, because your changes rely on the RCU change (semantically),
> > so if anyone bisects into your commits it might result in a
> > subtly broken kernel, right?
>
> Almost. The parent of my original pull request is the RCU
> change that my entry changes semantically depend on, so
> bisection should be fine.
Okay, that's good - so now I can pull your bits, because the RCU
commit is final, no need to rebase. (Because you already based
your bits on the RCU change that later on ended up in -tip.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
