[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4903748.31r3eYUQgx@kreacher>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 11:52:48 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the pm tree
Hi Stephen,
On Tuesday, March 5, 2024 1:26:41 AM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c0ef3df8dbae ("PM: runtime: Simplify pm_runtime_get_if_active() usage")
>
> from the pm tree and commit:
>
> 5245f4fd28d1 ("net: ipa: don't save the platform device")
>
> from the net-next 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.
The conflict resolution looks good to me, thank you!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists