[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200604123553.503daf22@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 12:35:53 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the sparc-next tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in:
arch/sparc/mm/srmmu.c
Commits
3408974d0533 sparc32: mm: Restructure sparc32 MMU page-table layout
c95be5b549d6 sparc32: mm: Change pgtable_t type to pte_t * instead of struct page *
f790d0205fd5 sparc32: mm: Fix argument checking in __srmmu_get_nocache()
from the tip tree are also in the sparc-next tree as different commits
(plus some others).
I fixed it up (I just used the sparc-next tree version) 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists