[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9f4f5d2-ea40-aa58-3c4d-bebfa828ce72@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:25:16 +0200
From: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfio tree with the s390 tree
Hi Stephen,
first thanks for the manual fix it's exactly the same resolution I would
have used. Sorry this conflict ended up on your desk without warning,
I had made Vasily and Heiko aware of this as an upcoming conflict but failed
to alert Alex who finally ended up carrying the change so I this is my fault.
Best regards,
Niklas Schnelle
On 9/24/20 6:26 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfio tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/s390/pci/pci_bus.c
>
> between commit:
>
> abb95b7550f8 ("s390/pci: consolidate SR-IOV specific code")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
> 08b6e22b850c ("s390/pci: Mark all VFs as not implementing PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY")
>
> from the vfio 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.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists