Re: [PATCH 0/10] m68k/thread_info merge

Hi,

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Can I assume that the five m68k patches can be split apart from the five
> > patches which dink with task_struct?  ie: if the task_struct patches go in
> > later, does anything bad happen?
> 
> eh, forget I asked that.  They're interdependent.

Actually they shouldn't be, unless I missed something.
Especially if there should be a conflict in the last three patches with 
some other patch, you can drop the conflicting part in my patch and I'll 
fix it up later.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/10] m68k/thread_info merge
    • From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/10] m68k/thread_info merge
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/10] m68k/thread_info merge
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: empty patch-2.6.13-git? patches on ftp.kernel.org
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.13-mm1: PCMCIA problem
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/10] m68k/thread_info merge
• Next by thread: [PATCH 1/10] m68k: introduce task_thread_info()
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]