[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zq-9jLqKelS1Y6bT@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:42:36 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sched-ext tree with the tip tree
Hello, Stephen.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 12:45:41PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the sched-ext tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/sched/fair.c
>
> between commit:
>
> faa42d29419d ("sched/fair: Make SCHED_IDLE entity be preempted in strict hierarchy")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> 2c8d046d5d51 ("sched: Add normal_policy()")
>
> from the sched-ext tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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 merge is a bit tricky because the former moves the test that the latter
converts and the new location doesn't show up as conflict. I merged
tip/sched/core into sched_ext/for-6.12 and resolved all the conflicts.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists