From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:52:50 -0700 Message-ID: <20180820125250.85db3bcb0052e1007a86358f@linux-foundation.org> References: <20180820143222.5aaa69d9@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180820143222.5aaa69d9@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Hunter , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , James Morse , Omar Sandoval List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:32:22 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > fs/proc/kcore.c > include/linux/kcore.h > > between commit: > > 6855dc41b246 ("x86: Add entry trampolines to kcore") > > from the tip tree and commits: > > 4eb27c275abf ("fs/proc/kcore.c: use __pa_symbol() for KCORE_TEXT list entries") > ea551910d3f4 ("proc/kcore: clean up ELF header generation") > 537412a2958f ("proc/kcore: don't grab lock for kclist_add()") > > from the akpm-current tree. > > 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. Yup. What's happening here? A two month old patch turns up in linux-next in the middle of the merge window, in the "perf/urgent" branch. That's a strange branch for a June 6 patch! Is it intended that this material be merged into 4.19-rc1?