On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
> I know there's history here, and in the 4.5 cycle things were much
> worse, but I still wanted to put things in their more precise place,
> if you don't mind.
We'll see how things shape up in the future. Once bitten, twice shy,
as they say.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> On 3/16/2016 1:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell
>>> wrote:
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no a
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 1:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>>> is required).
>>
>> Side note: can you change thi
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
Side note: can you change this wording for your manual merge script?
Last merge window (or was it the one before it?) we had confusion with
people w
Hi Linus,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:18:33 -0700 Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> > is required).
>
> Side note: can you change this wording for your manual merg
On 3/16/2016 1:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>> is required).
>
> Side note: can you change this wording for your manual merge script?
> Last merge window (or
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:15:03 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> > How about "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 want also want to
>
> O
2016-03-16 2:58 GMT+02:00 Stephen Rothwell :
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/fs_core.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 60ab4584f5bf ("net/mlx5_core: Set flow steering dest only for forward
> rules")
>
> from the net
Hi Stephen
> How about "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 want also want to
Only the second want is required.
> consider cooperate with the maint
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> How about "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 want also want to
> consider cooperate wi
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in:
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/fs_core.c
between commit:
60ab4584f5bf ("net/mlx5_core: Set flow steering dest only for forward rules")
from the net-next tree and commit:
b3638e1a7664 ("net/mlx5_core: Introduce
Hi Or,
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:05:24 +0200 Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
> On 1/5/2016 3:51 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got conflicts in:
> >
> >drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/vport.c
> >include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
> >inclu
On 1/5/2016 3:51 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Doug,
Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got conflicts in:
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/vport.c
include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
include/linux/mlx5/vport.h
between commits:
e1d7d349c69d ("net/mlx5: Update access functi
Hi Doug,
Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got conflicts in:
drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/vport.c
include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h
include/linux/mlx5/vport.h
between commits:
e1d7d349c69d ("net/mlx5: Update access functions to Query/Modify vport MAC
address")
e7546514
Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 03:26:50AM CEST, s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote:
>Hi Doug,
>
>Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in:
>
> net/core/dev.c
>
>between commit:
>
> 0e4ead9d7b36 ("net: introduce change upper device notifier change info")
>
>from the net-next tree and commit:
>
>
Hi Doug,
Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in:
net/core/dev.c
between commit:
0e4ead9d7b36 ("net: introduce change upper device notifier change info")
from the net-next tree and commit:
133b5b93c734 ("net: Add info for NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER event")
from the rdma tre
16 matches
Mail list logo
