On 12/29/2010 11:36 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted text
> On 12/29/2010 02:52 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:35:45PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>>> This is going to conflict with a387e95a ("") in x86/numa, so you'll need 
>>> the following hunk for acpi_fake_nodes().  I'm not sure why this patchset 
>>> is being based on x86/apic-cleanup rather than x86/numa?
>>
>> Because several patches from the patchset have already been committed
>> into x86/apic-cleanup.  Thomas, Peter, if this needs to be rebased
>> somewhere, let me know.
>>
> 
> x86/numa is already a dependent branch (on x86/amd-nb), so I'm fine
> merging x86/apic-cleanup into that branch and then if you could rebase
> it on top of the new x86/numa then I'll push it out tomorrow.
> 
> OK?
> 

I have pushed out this merge onto x86/numa, so waiting for your rebase.
 If you don't have time, then I'll rebase.

	-hpa
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/