From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the s390 tree Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:30:33 +1100 Message-ID: <20171113163023.0e5bbe50@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20171011155145.sfrwpb3b3rol7l3i@sirena.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:51887 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750957AbdKMFaf (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:30:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20171011155145.sfrwpb3b3rol7l3i@sirena.co.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky Cc: Mark Brown , Kirill Tkhai , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi all, On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:51:45 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/s390/include/asm/rwsem.h > > between commit: > > 91a1fad759ffd ("s390: use generic rwsem implementation") > > from the s390 tree and commit: > > a61ba2c8a48f1 ("locking/arch, s390: Add __down_read_killable()") > > from the tip tree. > > I fixed it up by re-deleting the file 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. Just a reminder that this conflict still exists. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell