[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250730092113.0c9cc43f@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:21:13 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo
Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Networking
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Raju Rangoju <Raju.Rangoju@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net-next tree
Hi all,
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 11:42:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-ptp.c
>
> between commit:
>
> fbd47be098b5 ("amd-xgbe: add hardware PTP timestamping support")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
> e78f70bad29c ("time/timecounter: Fix the lie that struct cyclecounter is const")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former removed the function updated by 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 net-next tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists