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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 E3228C33C9A for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 01:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B5C21582 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 01:50:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sifive.com header.i=@sifive.com header.b="eeXy++9V" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727318AbgAFBui (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:50:38 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com ([209.85.166.67]:40100 "EHLO mail-io1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727226AbgAFBui (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jan 2020 20:50:38 -0500 Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id x1so47050700iop.7 for ; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 17:50:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sifive.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=VdfYfcG5q1NyFiFXYXaUTE1whOJmabFbb1jufVcSpNI=; b=eeXy++9VzngyMEB/0k4M6iH/GjyUpFOnbDJCiIkbbm6/RIwHHyVylyEQ2emB6Jmt0B Ey43n3ErHFXltbzX74bKzN7M0sKo02Op0k5a2+tkHbcxII03JSpVjmibmFpUYQZJMB+f MSEGLwh5GjnwtOnqRS3o66SUc3XP2VfXwd+iDuWduOukvK+uxnkQWdYc/amwy/RpB54n 48jCh3KwpY3Vqc+vm8YwgTEk3Ijsr8sn5Lqs+ktIUgAmJmIl3XXVTVGw9o+0Na4lr0bZ OCwFdWhovdqIrX5I0j1XznJnXhpiqn5nX4aoMz8YKxptczjgO6AXnwrg6dAhD6zrbI7l YK1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=VdfYfcG5q1NyFiFXYXaUTE1whOJmabFbb1jufVcSpNI=; b=W726s3r+sB9ako9wje/cBKiCqyFVaWcKmQARbCAPnLA/wCEqtAGnmtlr7iplEoQNqh 4rcI8zeh12F606+KRT0s3kdQcJxadoJe8N7x1v85Rbj/SDTxiGKf3TzSX5qWq3gJcl5n 4pBEefWvI0gJapN47Lk/tdY3frdg3xZZ5yvZ/9rgo3fQiP3c/5Ki424egiC5zFpcRejW VGcG7pjSfCoP0jfh0LgSTAReaHDngM3Qok2vmS7tLhzYP96e/34bAFYBDHzpIg/eg7M4 kYJ9fjVXTtiB/ZfVwYN5OWlNXDso8UzSlDhNhAxtQMTJ0LoW1wEnLNOJr9GKv82dktmH qKnA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWGqQLCfC6qM5V8QHx9BRNjG0UTjb/HgKsZmUkBBTjjdd4oShWs a0OTXF2ag2dxV1CnzWzj/DgpTA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqymJINXQwafxuveL/Fa0mW5ldqpklrKDw9WhQEWFERck5saRPT6P7hvfY9QBdWsOGkXLeRrnA== X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c9c6:: with SMTP id z189mr64169930iof.285.1578275437348; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 17:50:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([64.62.168.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y18sm16204591ilm.9.2020.01.05.17.50.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 05 Jan 2020 17:50:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 17:50:35 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Walmsley X-X-Sender: paulw@viisi.sifive.com To: Stephen Rothwell cc: Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with Linus' tree In-Reply-To: <20200106093246.6abbb7e9@canb.auug.org.au> Message-ID: References: <20200106093246.6abbb7e9@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.9999 (DEB 301 2018-08-15) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org Hi Stephen, On Mon, 6 Jan 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst > > between commit: > > 0e194d9da198 ("Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > d89a1a16d7dc ("Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines") > > from the risc-v tree. > > I fixed it up (I used the version from Linus' tree as that was committed > later) 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, I just reset our for-next branch to v5.5-rc5, so this won't reappear. - Paul