From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dexuan Cui Subject: RE: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.current tree Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 08:46:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20181204153513.1e799336@canb.auug.org.au> <20181204074241.GB27141@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181204074241.GB27141@kroah.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , KY Srinivasan List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org > From: Greg KH > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 11:43 PM > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 03:35:13PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in: > > > > drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 37c2578c0c40 ("Drivers: hv: vmbus: Offload the handling of channels t= o > two workqueues") > > > > from the char-misc.current tree and commit: > > > > 4d3c5c69191f ("Drivers: hv: vmbus: Remove the useless API > vmbus_get_outgoing_channel()") > > > > from the char-misc tree. > > > > I fixed it up (I used the former version where they conflicted) and can > > carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is Hi Stephen,=20 Thank you! I can confirm your rebase for next-20181204 is correct: 37c2578c0c40 ("Drivers: hv: vmbus: Offload the handling of channels to two = workqueues") > > 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 conflictin= g > > tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. >=20 > Yeah, this is a mess, I'll wait for the hyper-v developers to send me a > fixup patch for handling this merge issue, as they know it is happening > :( >=20 > greg k-h Since Stephen has fixed the merge issue correctly, I guess I may not need t= o send a fixup patch for linux-next.git. If I didn't get it right, please let me know whic= h tree/branch I should work on to send a fixup patch. It looks the conflict here happened because the two related patches, which = modify the same functions, went into different branches of char-misc.git. I didn't= realize this could happen... Sorry. The lesson I learnt is that I should not submit an u= rgent fix with an unimportant clean-up patch at the same time, when they can cause a = conflict. Thanks, -- Dexuan