[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190813184211.09b93f31@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 18:42:11 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the arm64 tree
Hi Will,
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:24:23 +0100 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Paul, Palmer -- If it's not too late, then it would probably be best to
> stick this commit (60c1b220d8bc) and any dependencies on their own stable
> branch so that we can both pull it into our respective trees and I can
> resolve this conflict in the arm64 tree, which I'll send early during the
> merge window.
>
> Looking at your tree, I guess I could just pull in
> common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology if you promise never to rebase it. Failing
> that, you could fork a new branch from 60c1b220d8bc and I could just pull
> that part instead.
It may not be worth it, the conflict is not that bad. Unless you
forsee more conflicts arising.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists