[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e0adf8e-4434-4ead-9d8b-491aeb7e49c9@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 07:23:03 -0600
From: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.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
On 3/4/24 6:26 PM, 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.
Your fixup is correct. It exactly matches the change in
c0ef3df8dbaef ("PM: runtime: Simplify pm_runtime_get_if_active()
usage"), which is in linux-next but not net-next.
Thank you! And if you need it:
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
-Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists