[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9i4Ddcz7PsAu8zZ@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 07:41:17 +0100
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the usb tree with the
drm-intel-fixes tree
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
>
> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
>
> 4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
>
> from the usb tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter) 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.
Thanks for the merge resolution.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists