Re: linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree
Hi Christoph, On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 08:11:06 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > please drop my set_fs tree from linux-next. It is not going to be > merged for 5.9 in this form. OK, done from tomorrow. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpWqA2LVLZSU.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree
Hi Stephen, please drop my set_fs tree from linux-next. It is not going to be merged for 5.9 in this form. Thanks!
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree
Hi all, On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 19:09:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the set_fs tree got a conflict in: > > arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > > between commit: > > c30f931e891e ("powerpc/numa: remove ability to enable topology updates") > > from the powerpc tree and commit: > > 16a04bde8169 ("proc: switch over direct seq_read method calls to > seq_read_iter") > > from the set_fs tree. > > I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter, so I > just did that) 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 set_fs tree and Linus' tree. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgpgoL2PCd_XS.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the set_fs tree got a conflict in: arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c between commit: c30f931e891e ("powerpc/numa: remove ability to enable topology updates") from the powerpc tree and commit: 16a04bde8169 ("proc: switch over direct seq_read method calls to seq_read_iter") from the set_fs tree. I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter, so I just did that) 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. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell pgptnR9YEfRrZ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature