Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the arm64 tree

From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the arm64 tree
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:00:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190814090051.2qzhglnz4452avdc@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.999.1908132220450.13287@utopia.booyaka.com>

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:24:30PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:34:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   98dc19902a0b ("arm64: topology: Use PPTT to determine if PE is a thread")
> > > 
> > > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   60c1b220d8bc ("cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.")
> > > 
> > > from the risc-v 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.
> > 
> > Thanks, Stephen.
> > 
> > Paul, Palmer -- If it's not too late, then it would probably be best to
> > stick this commit (60c1b220d8bc) and any dependencies on their own stable
> > branch so that we can both pull it into our respective trees and I can
> > resolve this conflict in the arm64 tree, which I'll send early during the
> > merge window.
> > 
> > Looking at your tree, I guess I could just pull in
> > common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology if you promise never to rebase it. Failing
> > that, you could fork a new branch from 60c1b220d8bc and I could just pull
> > that part instead.
> 
> How about if we treat common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology as a stable branch?  
> I wasn't planning to rebase it.  Then both of us can just merge it into 
> our for-next branches for the merge window?  (It looks like I will need to 
> rebuild the riscv for-next branch on top of v5.3-rc5, for unrelated 
> reasons.)
> 
> Sound reasonable?

Cheers, Paul. Sounds good to me.

Will