[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240517094219.6a4f618a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 09:42:19 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Bibo Mao
<maobibo@...ngson.cn>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel
Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the loongarch
tree
Hi all,
On Wed, 15 May 2024 12:54:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/loongarch/kernel/irq.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5685d7fcb55f ("LoongArch: Give a chance to build with !CONFIG_SMP")
>
> from the loongarch tree and commit:
>
> 316863cb62fe ("LoongArch/smp: Refine some ipi functions on LoongArch platform")
>
> from the kvm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the latter removed a function that was made protected by
> CONFIG_SMP in the former - I just removed it) 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 loongarch tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists