[PATCH] powerpc: remove rejected merge file from arch/powerpc/kernel in linux-next

Commit 9778b696 (powerpc: Use CURRENT_THREAD_INFO instead of open coded assembly) got a rejected merge file iommu.c.rej committed with it. Signed-off-by: Gerard Snitselaar --- arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c.rej | 22 -- 1 file changed, 22 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch

[PATCH] iio: dac: ad5064: fix section mismatch in ad5064_init() in linux-next

ad5064_init() calls ad5064_spi_unregister_driver() which is annotated __exit. Signed-off-by: Gerard Snitselaar --- drivers/iio/dac/ad5064.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/iio/dac/ad5064.c b/drivers/iio/dac/ad5064.c index aa739c4..6ec1319 100644 --- a

Re: [PATCH] usb: twl6030-usb: variable otg not declared in twl6030_usbotg_irq() in linux-next

Yes, ignore my patch. It was applied to usb-next already and I forgot to check there. Jerry On Tue Jul 10 12, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:32:20PM -0700, Gerard Snitselaar wrote: > > commit ff9cce82 added back 2 lines that were removed by commit > > c83a8542 c

[PATCH] usb: twl6030-usb: variable otg not declared in twl6030_usbotg_irq() in linux-next

commit ff9cce82 added back 2 lines that were removed by commit c83a8542 causing build of twl6030-usb to get an error due to otg being referenced, but not declared. This patch removes those 2 lines again to restore intent of commit c83a8542. Signed-off-by: Gerard Snitselaar --- drivers/usb/otg

[PATCH] gpio/gpio-tps65910: gpio_chip.of_node referenced without CONFIG_OF_GPIO defined

From: Jerry Snitselaar commit 626f9914 added code to initialize gpio_chip.of_node, but if CONFIG_OF_GPIO is not defined gps-tps65910 fails to build with an error complaining gpio_chip has no member of_node. I ran into this while doing a allyesconfig build on linux-next. Signed-off-by: Gerard

Question regardings inodes and anon_hash_chain in 2.4/2.6

I know that anon_hash_chain has gone away in 2.6 because the inodes for special filesystems like sockfs, pipefs, etc are now associated with a superblock. Should these inodes have i_hash linked into the inode hashtable then? It appears in 2.4 now they are associated with superblocks as well. I hav