[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241115150539.49a010d8@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 15:05:39 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon
<will@...nel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64
tree
Hi all,
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:35:19 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/tools/sysreg
>
> between commit:
>
> 034993461890 ("arm64/sysreg: Update ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1 to DDI0601 2024-09")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
> 9ae424d2a1ae ("arm64: Define ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1.HAFDBS advertising FEAT_HAFT")
>
> from the kvm-arm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former is a superset of 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.
This is now a conflict between the kvm tree and the arm64 tree
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists