[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZuHpjntxhary-X8q@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 09:03:42 -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>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...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 sched-ext tree with the tip tree
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 04:40:46PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the sched-ext tree got conflicts in:
>
> kernel/sched/fair.c
> kernel/sched/syscalls.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 84d265281d6c ("sched/pelt: Use rq_clock_task() for hw_pressure")
> 5d871a63997f ("sched/fair: Move effective_cpu_util() and effective_cpu_util() in fair.c")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> 96fd6c65efc6 ("sched: Factor out update_other_load_avgs() from __update_blocked_others()")
>
> from the sched-ext tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the latter version of kernel/sched/fair.c and see
> below) 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.
I pulled tip/sched/core and resolved the conflict the same way. Will follow
up with a minor cleanup patch.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists