[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7cb7ccbdec1b8fd56be345bfa86648c4763c2473.camel@amazon.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 04:41:17 +0000
From: "Singh, Balbir" <sblbir@...zon.com>
To: "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree
On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 21:04 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 83ce56f712af ("x86/mm: Refactor cond_ibpb() to support other use cases")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> 36c8e34d03a1 ("x86/mm: remove vmalloc faulting")
>
> from the akpm-current 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 changes look reasonable to me (in terms of the merge resolution).
Acked-by: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists