On Wed, Mar 23 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:

On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 08:59 -0700, David Brown wrote:

quoted

David Brown (16):
      msm: Add CPU queries
      msm: Generalize timer register mappings
      msm: Generalize QGIC registers
      msm: Add MSM 8960 cpu_is check
      Merge branch 'msm-uart' into for-next
      Merge branch 'msm-8960' into for-next
      Merge branch 'msm-sdcc' into for-next
      Merge branch 'msm-fb' into for-next
      Merge branch 'msm-8960' into msm-core
      msm: Remove broken register definition from trout
      msm: Warning fix in trout gpio board file
      Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
      Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
      Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
      msm: Use explicit GPLv2 licenses
      Merge remote branch 'rmk/for-linus' into for-linus 

Could you change the "for-next" name to something more interesting like
msm-for-linus .. I think it would be acceptable to just create
msm-for-linus during the merge window and merge all the sub-tree's into
that.

I think the problem was that these trees came in, intended for
linux-next, and were pulled into that branch.  Then, I published that as
the tree for the pull-request 'for-linus', but nothing was actually
merged into that tree.

I can do a separate merge into the 'for-linus' tree before the merge
window, but then I won't be giving a pull request for the same commit as
what has been being tested in linux-next.  I'm not sure what is
preferred here.  Doing a separate merge at the end has the benefit of
reducing the number of intermediate merges.  The tree sha will be the
same in either case, so it's really a matter what the history should
look like.

Thanks,
David

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.