[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170331064228.2u6x3s4yp6xolsbw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:42:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the tip tree
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:44:51PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/sched/fair.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 0ccb977f4c80 ("sched/fair: Explicitly generate __update_load_avg() instances")
>
> from the tip tree and patch:
>
> "kernel/sched/fair.c: uninline __update_load_avg()"
>
> from the akpm 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.
Argh!
Andrew, please drop that patch. And the x86 out-of-line of __atomic_add_unless().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists