From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751319AbdHWXWu (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:22:50 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:55013 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751038AbdHWXWs (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:22:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:22:46 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Martin , Will Deacon Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20170824092246.6a92110e@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 Catalin, Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in: arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c between commit: 096622104e14 ("arm64: fpsimd: Prevent registers leaking across exec") from Linus' tree and commit: cb84d11e1625 ("arm64: neon: Remove support for nested or hardirq kernel-mode NEON") from the arm64 tree. I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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