Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:43:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 00:29 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:06:45 +0300 Andy Shevchenko > linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 10:07 +0200,

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:43:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 00:29 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:06:45 +0300 Andy Shevchenko > linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 10:07 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 00:29 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:06:45 +0300 Andy Shevchenko linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 10:07 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Meh, thanks.  This has been throught the buildbot

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 00:29 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:06:45 +0300 Andy Shevchenko linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 10:07 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Meh, thanks.  This has been throught the buildbot countless times > > >

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

Hi Andy, On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:06:45 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 10:07 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Meh, thanks.  This has been throught the buildbot countless times > > without a report.  But I guess a less generic name

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

Hi Andy, On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 17:06:45 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 10:07 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Meh, thanks.  This has been throught the buildbot countless times > > without a report.  But I guess a less generic name might be a good > > idea to start with.

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 10:07 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Meh, thanks.  This has been throught the buildbot countless times > without a report.  But I guess a less generic name might be a good > idea to start with. > > Andy: do you think UUID_INIT/GUID_INIT make sense to your? > or

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 10:07 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Meh, thanks.  This has been throught the buildbot countless times > without a report.  But I guess a less generic name might be a good > idea to start with. > > Andy: do you think UUID_INIT/GUID_INIT make sense to your? > or

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

Meh, thanks. This has been throught the buildbot countless times without a report. But I guess a less generic name might be a good idea to start with. Andy: do you think UUID_INIT/GUID_INIT make sense to your? or _INITIALIZER?

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

Meh, thanks. This has been throught the buildbot countless times without a report. But I guess a less generic name might be a good idea to start with. Andy: do you think UUID_INIT/GUID_INIT make sense to your? or _INITIALIZER?

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

Hi Christoph, On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:14:13 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > can you please include my uuid tree at: > > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/uuid.git for-next > > into linux-next? We've been doing a fair amount of work on the > uuid library and I plan to send

Re: new tree for linux-next: uuid

Hi Christoph, On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 22:14:13 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > can you please include my uuid tree at: > > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/uuid.git for-next > > into linux-next? We've been doing a fair amount of work on the > uuid library and I plan to send it and some

new tree for linux-next: uuid

Hi Stephen, can you please include my uuid tree at: git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/uuid.git for-next into linux-next? We've been doing a fair amount of work on the uuid library and I plan to send it and some work that will pile up on top of it to Linus for the next merge window.

new tree for linux-next: uuid

Hi Stephen, can you please include my uuid tree at: git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/uuid.git for-next into linux-next? We've been doing a fair amount of work on the uuid library and I plan to send it and some work that will pile up on top of it to Linus for the next merge window.

Re: New tree for linux-next

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >>> - My branch is based on the latest stable, similarly to what I have >>> seen elsewhere. One of the patches triggers a merge conflict on >>> today's linux-next due to a whitespace change. Is there something I >>> can do to fix this? >> >> Do

Re: New tree for linux-next

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Alexandre, > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:02:14 +0900 Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> >> I am currently trying to get rid of the GENERIC_GPIO config option in >> order to center GPIO support around gpiolib. The patch series has been >>

Re: New tree for linux-next

Hi Alexandre, On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:02:14 +0900 Alexandre Courbot wrote: > > I am currently trying to get rid of the GENERIC_GPIO config option in > order to center GPIO support around gpiolib. The patch series has been > rather welcome and I collected a few acks, but since the change is >

Re: New tree for linux-next

Hi Alexandre, On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:02:14 +0900 Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote: I am currently trying to get rid of the GENERIC_GPIO config option in order to center GPIO support around gpiolib. The patch series has been rather welcome and I collected a few acks, but since the

Re: New tree for linux-next

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: Hi Alexandre, On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:02:14 +0900 Alexandre Courbot gnu...@gmail.com wrote: I am currently trying to get rid of the GENERIC_GPIO config option in order to center GPIO support around gpiolib. The

Re: New tree for linux-next

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote: - My branch is based on the latest stable, similarly to what I have seen elsewhere. One of the patches triggers a merge conflict on today's linux-next due to a whitespace change. Is there something I can do to fix