Message ID | 1529996893-6390-1-git-send-email-andy.gross@linaro.org |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] Qualcomm Fixes for v4.18-rc2 | expand |
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 02:08:13AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > The following changes since commit 9573ce74d3bc797758cbd55194aae1b7248f2503: > > Merge tag 'qcom-fixes-for-4.18-rc1' into linus (2018-06-25 23:53:28 -0500) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/agross/linux.git tags/qcom-fixes-for-4.18-rc2 > > for you to fetch changes up to 0ea3fa15b12739c5455cd5850ada4e9948171213: > > qcom: cmd-db: enforce CONFIG_OF_RESERVED_MEM dependency (2018-06-25 23:54:38 -0500) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Qualcomm Fixes for v4.18-rc2 > > * Fix compiler warnings for cmd-db driver > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Arnd Bergmann (1): > qcom: cmd-db: enforce CONFIG_OF_RESERVED_MEM dependency Merged, thanks. -Olof
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 02:08:13AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: >> The following changes since commit 9573ce74d3bc797758cbd55194aae1b7248f2503: >> >> Merge tag 'qcom-fixes-for-4.18-rc1' into linus (2018-06-25 23:53:28 -0500) Hmm, I just noticed this. It is the kind of thing Linus sometimes gets upset about when it gets excessive (merge-backs). You should just have based this second branch on top of the first one without that merge. Or was it needed due to some conflict? -Olof
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:14:28PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 02:08:13AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > >> The following changes since commit 9573ce74d3bc797758cbd55194aae1b7248f2503: > >> > >> Merge tag 'qcom-fixes-for-4.18-rc1' into linus (2018-06-25 23:53:28 -0500) > > Hmm, I just noticed this. It is the kind of thing Linus sometimes gets > upset about when it gets excessive (merge-backs). > > You should just have based this second branch on top of the first one > without that merge. Or was it needed due to some conflict? No this was an honest mistake on my part. There wasn't any need to merge in the -rc1 as a base. My apologies. Regards, Andy