[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZykOPecMKbqirUZV@google.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 10:11:09 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>, jslaby@...e.cz,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
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 perf tree with Linus' tree
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 10:33:45AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the perf tree got a conflict in:
>
> tools/perf/util/syscalltbl.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5d35634ecc2d ("perf trace: Fix non-listed archs in the syscalltbl routines")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 8c0d1202bad3 ("perf, riscv: Wire up perf trace support for RISC-V")
>
> from the perf tree.
>
> I fixed it up (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.
Thanks for reporting this. I expected the conflict when I applied the
RISC-V change and now I've merged the perf-tools branch into the
perf-tools-next with the resolution like yours. So it won't hit the
mainline tree.
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists