From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FA2C10DCE for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:02:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD9F20663 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:02:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=mg.codeaurora.org header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.b="savUlJMP" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726212AbgCXHCb (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2020 03:02:31 -0400 Received: from mail27.static.mailgun.info ([104.130.122.27]:45909 "EHLO mail27.static.mailgun.info" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725905AbgCXHCb (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2020 03:02:31 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1585033350; h=Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Date: References: Subject: Cc: To: From: Sender; bh=nJ3chewxtuY/kHXLvF/iaS0jMEykQS+33TUuAaJ+now=; b=savUlJMPa6ZQVH8J2765sRYuYRnRh3kl9zROtYYDiYOvTaGZ4h14qBw3/2FkRRWGb98sX5tX QzD6ZXieZxagHM4Sp/bCO87QPEs7/NJdPxQ3vBBjh/mESGw5OvUDQuy/uTeXqixFV2BqI1f0 rGDJL1d8p0JIIUV1IpH5M41l6Uo= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 104.130.122.27 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJmNGRkZiIsICJsaW51eC1uZXh0QHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZyIsICJiZTllNGEiXQ== Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 5e79b02b.7f0ca6b1e110-smtp-out-n02; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:00:59 -0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 01B42C432C2; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:00:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from potku.adurom.net (88-114-240-156.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.240.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D18EEC433CB; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:00:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org D18EEC433CB Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Wireless , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Luca Coelho Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the wireless-drivers tree References: <20200324111653.35c368e4@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 09:00:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20200324111653.35c368e4@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:16:53 +1100") Message-ID: <87wo7a8cex.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell writes: > Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree got a > conflict in: > > drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/pcie/drv.c > > between commit: > > cf52c8a776d1 ("iwlwifi: pcie: add 0x2526/0x401* devices back to cfg detection") > > from the wireless-drivers tree and commits: > > 67eb556da609 ("iwlwifi: combine 9260 cfgs that only change names") > d6f2134a3831 ("iwlwifi: add mac/rf types and 160MHz to the device tables") > > from the wireless-drivers-next tree. > > I fixed it up (I am not sure wat to do with this, so I just dropped > the former changes for now) 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. Luca, how do you propose to fix this conflict? -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches