[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdY+nF-2qVvCZU5o7iRMYm2y7kbddBOguZdraFDwaY36jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:20:43 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the gpio tree
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/cris/Kconfig
>
> between commit:
>
> f518abf00d50 ("cris: do away with ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB")
>
> from the gpio tree and commit:
>
> 11eaeaeaa756 ("exit_thread: remove empty bodies")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
Thanks!
> This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
Hm I have the ACK of the CRIS maintainer on the patch to the
GPIO tree, is the left hand not aware what the right hand is doing :D
Anyway: this conflict looks very trivial so I believe Torvalds will
deal with it without problems.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists