[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180806194526.GL5007@mellanox.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:45:26 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
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>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the rdma tree
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 02:53:31PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 9867f5c6695f ("IB/uverbs: Convert 'bool exclusive' into an enum")
>
> from the rdma tree and commit:
>
> bfc18e389c7a ("atomics/treewide: Rename __atomic_add_unless() => atomic_fetch_add_unless()")
>
> 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.
Gaaagh that is a big conflict
I was going to do this next cycle.. But I'll try to push a commit
consolidating this crazy use of __atomic_add_unless into one function
so this conflict should become easier to handle.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists