[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160711071307.GB6835@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 09:13:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the kspp tree
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/x86_init.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 255303026193 ("x86: apply more __ro_after_init and const")
>
> from the kspp tree and commit:
Kees, did you plan to submit this patch (and any other pending x86 patches) to the
x86 tree?
>
> 1bf8915ae515 ("x86/tsc: Enumerate SKL cpu_khz and tsc_khz via CPUID")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. 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.
Looks good to me!
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists