[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <697853b8ea075_1d3310066@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 21:57:12 -0800
From: <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Smita Koralahalli
<Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cxl tree with the tip tree
Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cxl tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/e820.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 44f732f3ec827 ("x86/boot/e820: Clean up confusing and self-contradictory verbiage around E820 related resource allocations")
> dc043d6463bf5 ("x86/boot/e820: Standardize e820 table index variable names under 'idx'")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> bc62f5b308cbd ("dax/hmem, e820, resource: Defer Soft Reserved insertion until hmem is ready")
>
> from the cxl tree.
Thanks for the fixup, Mark! Looks good.
Ingo, you were not copied on the thread where this originated:
http://lore.kernel.org/69443f707b025_1cee10022@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch
Boris had some involvement on an earlier version of this, but so far no
one from the tip tree has acked this follow-up.
Please let Dave and I know if you have any concerns. We have it in -next
for soaking and testing, but happy to reroute if needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists