Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (lpfc)

2013-05-06 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 05/06/13 09:49, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 09:14 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 05/05/13 21:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included >>> branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released. >>> >>> I am rec

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (lpfc)

2013-05-06 Thread Martin K. Petersen
> "James" == James Bottomley writes: >> drivers/built-in.o: In function `lpfc_bg_crc': (.text+0x3cb3c9): >> undefined reference to `crc_t10dif' James> That's the usual minor config cockup, isn't it? lpfc apparently James> also needs the generic checksum, so the fix would seem to be James> t

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (lpfc)

2013-05-06 Thread James Bottomley
On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 09:14 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 05/05/13 21:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included > > branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released. > > > > I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts

Re: linux-next: Tree for May 6 (lpfc)

2013-05-06 Thread Randy Dunlap
On 05/05/13 21:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Please do not add any v3.11 destined work to your linux-next included > branches until after v3.10-rc1 is released. > > I am receiving a (un)reasonable number of conflicts from there being > multiple copies of some commits in various trees.