[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z9sgFGya_MDbfSQ6@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 20:50:44 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...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>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Joel Granados <joel.granados@...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 tip tree with the s390 tree
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/sysctl.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 20de8f8d3178 ("s390: Move s390 sysctls into their own file under arch/s390")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
> c305a4e98378 ("x86: Move sysctls into arch/x86")
>
> from the tip 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.
Thank you Stephen!
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists