Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c between commit
53a2aa296b5108e9bfdcda7f41221e721d9c7474 ("x86,hw_breakpoint,kgdb: kgdb
to use hw_breakpoint API") from the kgdb tree and commit
cc0967490c1c3824bc5b75718b6ca8a51d9f2617 ("x86, hw_breakpoints, kgdb: Fix
kgdb to use hw_breakpoint API") from the tip tree.
These two commits are similar but sufficiently different to make a mess.
I effectively reverted the kgdb tree version and used the tip tree
version. This also involved reverting the kgdb tree changes to
arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c. I hope I got it right (since I had to
reapply a few other kgdb changes by hand) (an x86_64 allmodconfig build
produces no new warnings or errors, so I have some hope).
Someone should give me some guidance as to a way forward here, please.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c between commit
> 53a2aa296b5108e9bfdcda7f41221e721d9c7474 ("x86,hw_breakpoint,kgdb: kgdb
> to use hw_breakpoint API") from the kgdb tree and commit
> cc0967490c1c3824bc5b75718b6ca8a51d9f2617 ("x86, hw_breakpoints, kgdb: Fix
> kgdb to use hw_breakpoint API") from the tip tree.
>
> These two commits are similar but sufficiently different to make a mess.
> I effectively reverted the kgdb tree version and used the tip tree
> version. This also involved reverting the kgdb tree changes to
> arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c. I hope I got it right (since I had to
> reapply a few other kgdb changes by hand) (an x86_64 allmodconfig build
> produces no new warnings or errors, so I have some hope).
>
> Someone should give me some guidance as to a way forward here, please.
>
>
What is in tip is the correct version.
It is the age old time dependency of who updates whose tree first, vs
when the linux-next merge runs. At any rate this is already resolved.
Thanks,
Jason.
Hi Jason,
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:46:26 -0600 Jason Wessel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What is in tip is the correct version.
OK, good.
> It is the age old time dependency of who updates whose tree first, vs
> when the linux-next merge runs. At any rate this is already resolved.
Even better :-)
Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/