From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752556AbdEVIdX (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 04:33:23 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33034 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751645AbdEVIdV (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 04:33:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 09:32:15 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20170522083214.GA1478@leverpostej> References: <20170522132711.22b80ff5@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170522132711.22b80ff5@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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' tree and commit: > > d54bb72551b9 ("arm64/cpufeature: Use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()") > > from the tip tree. Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date? That latter commit was in the tip smp/hotplug branch, but that branch was reset to v4.12-rc1 a few days ago (before the first commit was sent to Linus), specifically to avoid this conflict. ... did we miss another branch that was merged into, perhaps? > I have no idea what the correct resolution is here, so I have just gone > with the former for now (i.e. removed the > static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() call). This will probably need a > better (or even correct :-)) fix. The good news is that the commit in Linus' tree is the correct fix. :) The other commit was a slightly broken prior attempt, and shouldn't be in the tip tree any more. > I fixed it up (see above) 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. We tried, but evidently something went wrong. :/ Thanks, Mark.