[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191106072833.GC2560@uranus.lan>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:28:33 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
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>,
Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the tip tree
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:03:31PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 446e693ca30b ("x86/fpu: Use XFEATURE_FP/SSE enum values instead of hardcoded numbers")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> ec2f877856e0 ("treewide: Use sizeof_member() macro")
>
> from the kspp 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.
Since these macros are just the same the fix is fine. Thank you!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists