arch/tile update for 3.1
Linus,
Please pull the following trivial change for 3.1 from:
git://github.com/cmetcalf-tilera/linux-tile.git stable
This change allows 3.1-rc9 to build for the Tile architecture. A bombing of <asm/atomic.h> to <linux/atomic.h> erroneously modified a couple of places where we were relying on some assembly constants in the tile <asm/atomic.h>. Thanks!
Chris Metcalf (1):
tile: revert change from <asm/atomic.h> to <linux/atomic.h> in asm files
arch/tile/kernel/intvec_32.S | 2 +- arch/tile/lib/atomic_asm_32.S | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Signature · 2 lines
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com
Quoted 9 lines · Chris Metcalf
Please pull the following trivial change for 3.1 from:
git://github.com/cmetcalf-tilera/linux-tile.git stable
This change allows 3.1-rc9 to build for the Tile architecture. A bombing of <
asm/atomic.h> to <linux/atomic.h> erroneously modified a couple of places where we were relying on some assembly constants in the tile <asm/atomic.h>. Thanks!
This is not *at*all* what I get when I pull that branch.
I get a merge and two other commits too.
Not pulled.
Linus
Quoted 9 lines · Linus Torvalds
Quoted 8 lines · Chris Metcalf
Please pull the following trivial change for 3.1 from:
git://github.com/cmetcalf-tilera/linux-tile.gitstableThis change allows 3.1-rc9 to build for the Tile architecture. A bombing of <
asm/atomic.h> to <linux/atomic.h> erroneously modified a couple of places where we were relying on some assembly constants in the tile <asm/atomic.h>. Thanks!
Quoted 5 lines
This is not *at*all* what I get when I pull that branch.
I get a merge and two other commits too.
Not pulled.
Mea culpa. I've fixed the tree, so if you could pull again, it should now have what the original message described.
No doubt my screwup is just a variant on a story you've heard more than a few times, but for the record, here's some detail. I saw the extra two commits, which made no sense to me, so I examined one of the files that the request-pull message described as different and saw no difference, so I assumed it was just some minor confusion (maybe due to github vs kernel.org). Turns out that commit was a duplicate that had been in my tree since June that I'd forgotten about, and the merge represented git merging in the same semantic commit from a different tree. So, I've now rolled back my stable tree to June, re-applied just the patch I wanted you to pull, and retested the tree -- and confirmed that git request-pull actually now produces the output in my earlier email.
I'll make sure this doesn't happen again.
Signature · 2 lines
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com