[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2116937.mQ1ftdtgHJ@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:09:03 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
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>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pm tree
On Monday, November 6, 2017 3:10:40 AM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 0563bb7ba67e ("intel_idle: replace conditionals with static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARAT)")
>
> from the pm tree and commit:
>
> 675357362aeb ("Revert "x86/mm: Stop calling leave_mm() in idle code"")
>
> 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.
The fix looks good to me, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists