linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree

linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the set_fs tree got a conflict in:

  arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c

between commit:

  c30f931e891e ("powerpc/numa: remove ability to enable topology updates")

from the powerpc tree and commit:

  16a04bde8169 ("proc: switch over direct seq_read method calls to seq_read_iter")

from the set_fs tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter, so I
just did that) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1013 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 19:09:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the set_fs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   c30f931e891e ("powerpc/numa: remove ability to enable topology updates")
> 
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
> 
>   16a04bde8169 ("proc: switch over direct seq_read method calls to seq_read_iter")
> 
> from the set_fs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter, so I
> just did that) 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.

This is now a conflict between the set_fs tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree

[Christoph Hellwig]

Hi Stephen,

please drop my set_fs tree from linux-next.  It is not going to be
merged for 5.9 in this form.

Thanks!

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the set_fs tree with the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 257 bytes --]

Hi Christoph,

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 08:11:06 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
>
> please drop my set_fs tree from linux-next.  It is not going to be
> merged for 5.9 in this form.

OK, done from tomorrow.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]