[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCMNVzmguCy-_bMT@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 11:13:59 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/linux/cpu.h
>
> between commit:
>
> f4818881c47f ("x86/its: Enable Indirect Target Selection mitigation")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 4e2c719782a8 ("x86/cpu: Help users notice when running old Intel microcode")
>
> 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.
LGTM.
Note that I have resolved all conflicts in -tip as well, so these
manual -next conflict resolutions between -tip and -linus should go
away after today's -next integration.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists