[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200809185726.5d8e5f55@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 18:57:26 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc
tree
Hi all,
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 19:09:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the set_fs tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c30f931e891e ("powerpc/numa: remove ability to enable topology updates")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 16a04bde8169 ("proc: switch over direct seq_read method calls to seq_read_iter")
>
> from the set_fs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter, so I
> just did that) 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.
This is now a conflict between the set_fs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists