[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20260209085810.9aa1e0c9e8cac00ba9585171@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 08:58:10 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
<mhiramat@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Yury Norov <ynorov@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the
mm-nonmm-stable tree
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 15:43:49 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/trace/trace.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 86e685ff364394 ("tracing: remove size parameter in __trace_puts()")
>
> from the mm-nonmm-stable tree and commits:
>
> 27931ee8f45415 ("tracing: Move trace_printk functions out of trace.c and into trace_printk.c")
> 0e730bc067e7a7 ("tracing: Move __trace_buffer_{un}lock_*() functions to trace.h")
>
> from the ftrace 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.
Yikes.
How about I drop "tracing: remove size parameter in __trace_puts()" and
"tracing: move tracing declarations from kernel.h to a dedicated
header"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists