linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with Linus' tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
	Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with Linus' tree
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 09:40:03 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230206094003.5438e04a@canb.auug.org.au> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 971 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h

between commit:

  0b1d60d6dd9e ("riscv: Fix build with CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y")

from Linus' tree and commits:

  80c200b34ee8 ("RISC-V: resort all extensions in consistent orders")
  d8a3d8a75206 ("riscv: hwcap: make ISA extension ids can be used in asm")
  bdda5d554e43 ("riscv: introduce riscv_has_extension_[un]likely()")
  03966594e117 ("riscv: remove riscv_isa_ext_keys[] array and related usage")

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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