Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:39:02 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > I fixed it up (the latter removed the code updated by the former, so I > just used the latter) 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

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/kprobes.c between commit: 645f224e7ba2 ("kprobes: Tell lockdep about kprobe nesting") from Linus' tree and commits: d741bf41d7c7 ("kprobes: Remove kretprobe hash") 6e426e0fcd20 ("kprobes: Replace

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/time/timekeeping.c between commit: 025e82bcbc34 ("timekeeping: Use sequence counter with associated raw spinlock") from Linus' tree and commit: 19d0070a2792 ("timekeeping/vsyscall: Provide

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi Thomas, On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 12:43:24 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Sorry for that inconveniance. I'm about to get rid of the conflicts on > the tip side. Thanks. I do realise that it can take a little while between when Linus adds something to his tree and previous versions get purged.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Stephen Rothwell writes: > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in: > > include/linux/compiler.h > > between commits: > > dee081bf8f82 ("READ_ONCE: Drop pointer qualifiers when reading from scalar > types") > 9e343b467c70 ("READ_ONCE: Enforce atomicity for

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: include/linux/compiler_types.h between commits: a5dead405f6b ("compiler_types.h: Optimize __unqual_scalar_typeof compilation time") from Linus' tree and commits: 1fd76043ecb0 ("compiler_types.h: Optimize

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in: include/linux/compiler.h between commits: dee081bf8f82 ("READ_ONCE: Drop pointer qualifiers when reading from scalar types") 9e343b467c70 ("READ_ONCE: Enforce atomicity for {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() memory accesses")

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/sparc/include/asm/pgtable_32.h because commits 3408974d0533 ("sparc32: mm: Restructure sparc32 MMU page-table layout") c95be5b549d6 ("sparc32: mm: Change pgtable_t type to pte_t * instead of struct page *") from

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/index.rst between commit: 7222a1b5b874 ("x86/speculation: Add SRBDS vulnerability and mitigation documentation") from Linus' tree and commit: 0fcfdf55db9e ("Documentation: Add L1D

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:10:32PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/compiler.h > > between commit: > > a9a3ed1eff36 ("x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, third try") > > from Linus' tree and commit:

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: include/linux/compiler.h between commit: a9a3ed1eff36 ("x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, third try") from Linus' tree and commit: f670269a42bf ("x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, next try") from the tip tree.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c > > between commit: > > cd188af5282d ("tools/power turbostat: Fix Haswell Core systems") > b62b3184576b ("tools/power turbostat: add

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c between commit: cd188af5282d ("tools/power turbostat: Fix Haswell Core systems") b62b3184576b ("tools/power turbostat: add Jacobsville support") d93ea567fc4e ("tools/power

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/types.h between commit: d9c525229521 ("treewide: add "WITH Linux-syscall-note" to SPDX tag of uapi headers") from Linus' tree and commit: 701010532164 ("x86/build: Remove unneeded uapi

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/um/Kconfig between commit: eac616557050 ("x86: Deprecate a.out support") from Linus' tree and commit: 942fa985e9f1 ("32-bit userspace ABI: introduce ARCH_32BIT_OFF_T config option") from the tip tree. I

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: >> > >> > arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c >> > >> > between commit: >> > >> >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: >> > >> > arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c >> > >> > between commit: >> > >> >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 184d47f0fd36 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()") > > > > from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 184d47f0fd36 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()") > > > > from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c > > between commit: > > 184d47f0fd36 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 1be3f247c288 ("x86/mm:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c > > between commit: > > 184d47f0fd36 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 1be3f247c288 ("x86/mm:

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c between commit: 184d47f0fd36 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()") from Linus' tree and commit: 1be3f247c288 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()") from the tip tree. I fixed it up (I used the

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c between commit: 184d47f0fd36 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()") from Linus' tree and commit: 1be3f247c288 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()") from the tip tree. I fixed it up (I used the

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: tools/testing/selftests/Makefile between commit: a12ab9e125f1 ("selftests: move RTC tests to rtc subfolder") from Linus' tree and commit: ccba8b64452b ("rseq/selftests: Provide Makefile, scripts, gitignore") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: tools/testing/selftests/Makefile between commit: a12ab9e125f1 ("selftests: move RTC tests to rtc subfolder") from Linus' tree and commit: ccba8b64452b ("rseq/selftests: Provide Makefile, scripts, gitignore") from the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > > between commit: > > c992384bde84 ("KVM: vmx: speed up MSR bitmap merge") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > ff37dc0cd96c ("KVM/nVMX:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > > between commit: > > c992384bde84 ("KVM: vmx: speed up MSR bitmap merge") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > ff37dc0cd96c ("KVM/nVMX: Set the

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c between commit: c992384bde84 ("KVM: vmx: speed up MSR bitmap merge") from Linus' tree and commit: ff37dc0cd96c ("KVM/nVMX: Set the CPU_BASED_USE_MSR_BITMAPS if we have a valid L02 MSR bitmap") from

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c between commit: c992384bde84 ("KVM: vmx: speed up MSR bitmap merge") from Linus' tree and commit: ff37dc0cd96c ("KVM/nVMX: Set the CPU_BASED_USE_MSR_BITMAPS if we have a valid L02 MSR bitmap") from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 9, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 07:04:56PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:03:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 9, 2018, at 1:25 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 07:04:56PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:03:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 07:04:56PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:03:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> * Will Deacon wrote: > >> > >> > For the sake of

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 07:04:56PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:03:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> * Will Deacon wrote: > >> > >> > For the sake of avoiding the conflict, can

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:03:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Will Deacon wrote: >> >> > For the sake of avoiding the conflict, can we just drop it for now, please? >> >> Yeah, so I resolved

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 8, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:03:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Will Deacon wrote: >> >> > For the sake of avoiding the conflict, can we just drop it for now, please? >> >> Yeah, so I resolved the conflict by

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:03:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Will Deacon wrote: > > > For the sake of avoiding the conflict, can we just drop it for now, please? > > Yeah, so I resolved the conflict by merging the (already upstream) bits and > Linus > pulled that

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:03:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Will Deacon wrote: > > > For the sake of avoiding the conflict, can we just drop it for now, please? > > Yeah, so I resolved the conflict by merging the (already upstream) bits and > Linus > pulled that resolution. From now

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Will Deacon wrote: > For the sake of avoiding the conflict, can we just drop it for now, please? Yeah, so I resolved the conflict by merging the (already upstream) bits and Linus pulled that resolution. From now on the level of comments you want there is up to you!

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Will Deacon wrote: > For the sake of avoiding the conflict, can we just drop it for now, please? Yeah, so I resolved the conflict by merging the (already upstream) bits and Linus pulled that resolution. From now on the level of comments you want there is up to you! :-) Thanks,

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:05:52PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:06:50PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> - On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 05:05:52PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:06:50PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> - On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:06:50PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:52:34PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 6, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:06:50PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:52:34PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:06:50PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:52:34PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> One approach I would consider for this is to duplicate this > >> comment and add

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:06:50PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:52:34PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >> One approach I would consider for this is to duplicate this > >> comment and add

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:52:34PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au >> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:52:34PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> - On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au >> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:52:34PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > > > > between commit: >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:52:34PM +, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > > > > between commit: >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > > between commit: > > 4bf3286d29f3 ("arm64: entry: Hook up entry trampoline to exception vectors") > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

- On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > > between commit: > > 4bf3286d29f3 ("arm64: entry: Hook up entry trampoline to exception vectors") > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 11:54:38AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/sched/mm.h > > between commit: > > d70f2a14b72a ("include/linux/sched/mm.h: uninline mmdrop_async(), etc") FWIW, akpm has a patch

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 11:54:38AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/sched/mm.h > > between commit: > > d70f2a14b72a ("include/linux/sched/mm.h: uninline mmdrop_async(), etc") FWIW, akpm has a patch

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: include/linux/sched/mm.h between commit: d70f2a14b72a ("include/linux/sched/mm.h: uninline mmdrop_async(), etc") from Linus' tree and commit: 306e060435d7 ("membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements") from

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: include/linux/sched/mm.h between commit: d70f2a14b72a ("include/linux/sched/mm.h: uninline mmdrop_async(), etc") from Linus' tree and commit: 306e060435d7 ("membarrier: Document scheduler barrier requirements") from

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/Kconfig between commit: ea8c64ace866 ("dma-mapping: move swiotlb arch helpers to a new header") from Linus' tree and commit: 10bcc80e9dbc ("membarrier/x86: Provide core serializing command") from the tip

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/Kconfig between commit: ea8c64ace866 ("dma-mapping: move swiotlb arch helpers to a new header") from Linus' tree and commit: 10bcc80e9dbc ("membarrier/x86: Provide core serializing command") from the tip

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S between commit: 4bf3286d29f3 ("arm64: entry: Hook up entry trampoline to exception vectors") from Linus' tree and commit: f1e3a12b6543 ("membarrier/arm64: Provide core serializing command")

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S between commit: 4bf3286d29f3 ("arm64: entry: Hook up entry trampoline to exception vectors") from Linus' tree and commit: f1e3a12b6543 ("membarrier/arm64: Provide core serializing command")

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c between commit: 87df26175e67 ("x86/mm: Unbreak modules that rely on external PAGE_KERNEL availability") from Linus' tree and commit: 606b21d4a649 ("x86/io: Unroll string I/O when SEV is

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt.c between commit: 87df26175e67 ("x86/mm: Unbreak modules that rely on external PAGE_KERNEL availability") from Linus' tree and commit: 606b21d4a649 ("x86/io: Unroll string I/O when SEV is

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi Stephen, On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:44:56AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:32:15 +0100 Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date? > > Yes, it was fetched just before being merged. I use the auto-latest > branch

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi Stephen, On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:44:56AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:32:15 +0100 Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date? > > Yes, it was fetched just before being merged. I use the auto-latest > branch of the tip tree which

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi Mark, On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:32:15 +0100 Mark Rutland wrote: > > Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date? Yes, it was fetched just before being merged. I use the auto-latest branch of the tip tree which may not be as up to date as the master branch. > That

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi Mark, On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:32:15 +0100 Mark Rutland wrote: > > Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date? Yes, it was fetched just before being merged. I use the auto-latest branch of the tip tree which may not be as up to date as the master branch. > That latter commit was in the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 01:27:11PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, Hi, > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > > between commit: > > 63a1e1c95e60 ("arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path") > > from Linus'

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 01:27:11PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, Hi, > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > > between commit: > > 63a1e1c95e60 ("arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path") > > from Linus'

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h between commit: 63a1e1c95e60 ("arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path") from Linus' tree and commit: d54bb72551b9 ("arm64/cpufeature: Use

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h between commit: 63a1e1c95e60 ("arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path") from Linus' tree and commit: d54bb72551b9 ("arm64/cpufeature: Use

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 11:09 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/memremap.c > > between commit: > > eb7d78c9e7f6 ("devm_memremap_pages: fix vmem_altmap lifetime + > alignment handling") > > from Linus' tree and

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/memremap.c between commit: eb7d78c9e7f6 ("devm_memremap_pages: fix vmem_altmap lifetime + alignment handling") from Linus' tree and commit: 1c29f25bf5d6 ("memremap: Change region_intersects() to take @flags and

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/memremap.c between commit: eb7d78c9e7f6 ("devm_memremap_pages: fix vmem_altmap lifetime + alignment handling") from Linus' tree and commit: 1c29f25bf5d6 ("memremap: Change region_intersects() to take @flags and

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 11:09 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/memremap.c > > between commit: > > eb7d78c9e7f6 ("devm_memremap_pages: fix vmem_altmap lifetime + > alignment handling") > > from Linus' tree and

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: tools/perf/ui/browsers/hists.c between commit: bd315aab8a3a ("perf top: Fix segfault pressing -> with no hist entries") from Linus' tree and commit: 84734b06b630 ("perf hists browser: Zoom in/out for processor socket")

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: tools/perf/ui/browsers/hists.c between commit: bd315aab8a3a ("perf top: Fix segfault pressing -> with no hist entries") from Linus' tree and commit: 84734b06b630 ("perf hists browser: Zoom in/out for processor socket")

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S between commit: cd88ec231701 ("x86: fix error handling for 32-bit compat out-of-range system call numbers") from Linus' tree and commit: c73e36b775a7 ("x86/asm/entry/32: Replace

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S between commit: cd88ec231701 (x86: fix error handling for 32-bit compat out-of-range system call numbers) from Linus' tree and commit: c73e36b775a7 (x86/asm/entry/32: Replace

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi Paolo, On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:49:09 +0200 Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 06/07/2015 02:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > > > kernel/sched/core.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 2ecd9d29abb1 ("sched, preempt_notifier: separate

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On 06/07/2015 02:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/sched/core.c > > between commit: > > 2ecd9d29abb1 ("sched, preempt_notifier: separate notifier > registration from static_key inc/dec") > > from Linus' tree and

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On 06/07/2015 02:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/sched/core.c between commit: 2ecd9d29abb1 (sched, preempt_notifier: separate notifier registration from static_key inc/dec) from Linus' tree and commit:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi Paolo, On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:49:09 +0200 Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote: On 06/07/2015 02:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/sched/core.c between commit: 2ecd9d29abb1 (sched, preempt_notifier: separate

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/sched/core.c between commit: 2ecd9d29abb1 ("sched, preempt_notifier: separate notifier registration from static_key inc/dec") from Linus' tree and commit: 6efde1d3716b ("sched/preempt, kvm: Fix KVM

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: kernel/sched/core.c between commit: 2ecd9d29abb1 (sched, preempt_notifier: separate notifier registration from static_key inc/dec) from Linus' tree and commit: 6efde1d3716b (sched/preempt, kvm: Fix KVM

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > On 05/20/2014 09:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > > > arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb ("x86-64, > > > modify_ldt: Make support for

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ok. Will do. Thanks! Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Ok. Will do. On May 20, 2014 11:01:00 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 05/20/2014 09:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in >> > arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb ("x86-64,

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/20/2014 09:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > > arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb ("x86-64, > > modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option") > > from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: On 05/20/2014 09:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb (x86-64, modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option) from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Ok. Will do. On May 20, 2014 11:01:00 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote: * H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: On 05/20/2014 09:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: Ok. Will do. Thanks! Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

* Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote: * H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: On 05/20/2014 09:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb (x86-64, modify_ldt: Make

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On 05/20/2014 09:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb ("x86-64, > modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option") > from Linus' tree and commit 34273f41d57e

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb ("x86-64, modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option") from Linus' tree and commit 34273f41d57e ("x86, espfix: Make it possible to disable 16-bit support") from

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c between commit fa81511bb0bb ("x86-64, modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option") from Linus' tree and commit 18d0a6fd2271 ("x86, vdso: Move the 32-bit vdso special pages after the

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/vdso/vdso32-setup.c between commit fa81511bb0bb (x86-64, modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option) from Linus' tree and commit 18d0a6fd2271 (x86, vdso: Move the 32-bit vdso special pages after the

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb (x86-64, modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option) from Linus' tree and commit 34273f41d57e (x86, espfix: Make it possible to disable 16-bit support) from the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On 05/20/2014 09:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c between commit fa81511bb0bb (x86-64, modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option) from Linus' tree and commit 34273f41d57e (x86,

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On 03/21/2014 09:53 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c between commit 2c666adacc9e > ("x86, intel, uncore: Fix CPU hotplug callback registration") from Linus' > tree and commit

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On 03/21/2014 09:53 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c between commit 2c666adacc9e (x86, intel, uncore: Fix CPU hotplug callback registration) from Linus' tree and commit 411cf180fa00

linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_uncore.c between commit 2c666adacc9e ("x86, intel, uncore: Fix CPU hotplug callback registration") from Linus' tree and commit 411cf180fa00 ("perf/x86/uncore: fix initialization of cpumask")

  1   2   >