From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755139AbdHYIoV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:44:21 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:33136 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754957AbdHYIoT (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:44:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87wp5s83ss.fsf@arm.com>
References: <20170825145721.51c56af3@canb.auug.org.au> <87wp5s83ss.fsf@arm.com>
From: Christoffer Dall <cdall@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:44:17 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xEEABCMXJkiXcyvnAEBp9ykpIVo
Message-ID: <CAEDV+gJa4pY-c3G1S6fq3HmkS3eukR3qFd6i=k-2Ws6Z0N=mxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Fri, Aug 25 2017 at  2:57:21 pm BST, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   1f9b8936f36f ("arm64: Decode information from ESR upon mem faults")
>>
>> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>>
>>   c5511c3c068c ("KVM: arm/arm64: Fix guest external abort matching")
>>
>> from the kvm-arm tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I used the former 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.
>
> Thanks for that, result looking good.
>
> Christoffer: I think we could simply drop the hunk touching esr.h from
> James' patch. After all, even if nothing is using it, this bit still
> exists in the ESR register, and there is little gain in dropping its
> definition. This would solve the conflict nicely...
>

Yes, I have updated the branch accordingly and added my signed-off-by as well.

Thanks,
-Christoffer