From: Sam Ravnborg
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:32:08 +0100
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:11:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > Dave, Sam:
>> >
>> > should I just apply a version of Rob's tree that takes the refactoring
>>
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 05:11:46PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Dave, Sam:
> >
> > should I just apply a version of Rob's tree that takes the refactoring
> > into account to the dma-mapping tree? That way we should get th
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Dave, Sam:
>
> should I just apply a version of Rob's tree that takes the refactoring
> into account to the dma-mapping tree? That way we should get the right
> result independent of the merge order.
E.g. something like the pat
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 09:30:42AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the sparc-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 53b7670e5735 ("sparc: factor the dma coherent mapping into helper")
>
> from the dma-map
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the sparc-next tree got a conflict in:
arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c
between commit:
53b7670e5735 ("sparc: factor the dma coherent mapping into helper")
from the dma-mapping tree and commit:
86ef771ed543 ("sparc: Use DT node full_name instead of name for
5 matches
Mail list logo