From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757219AbdEVDfR (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2017 23:35:17 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:58585 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751002AbdEVDfP (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2017 23:35:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 13:27:11 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20170522132711.22b80ff5@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()") from the tip tree. 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. 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. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell