[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201013143452.4ccade99@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 14:34:52 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....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 tip tree with the pci tree
Hi all,
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 15:35:10 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/msi.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 2705b8e4d46f ("x86/apic/msi: Use Real PCI DMA device when configuring IRTE")
>
> from the pci tree and commit:
>
> 7ca435cf857d ("x86/irq: Cleanup the arch_*_msi_irqs() leftovers")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the latter removed the code updated by the former, so I
> 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 pci tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists