From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751639AbdF2AOt (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:14:49 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:52111 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751541AbdF2AOl (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:14:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 02:14:39 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Bjorn Helgaas , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Michael Hernandez , Himanshu Madhani , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pci tree Message-ID: <20170629001439.GB21758@lst.de> References: <20170628131534.1d549e19@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170628131534.1d549e19@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 01:15:34PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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. The merge looks fine to me.