[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201001160611.GA2696105@bjorn-Precision-5520>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 11:06:11 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Heng <liheng40@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pci tree
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 04:38:27PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/pci/xen.c
>
> between commit:
>
> b0623566c2e9 ("x86/xen: Fix xen_msi_init() missing prototype warning")
I dropped this from my tree, thanks for the heads-up.
> from the pci tree and commit:
>
> 2905c50b7d3e ("x86/xen: Make xen_msi_init() static and rename it to xen_hvm_msi_init()")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter since it incorporated the change
> from the former) 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists