From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oi1-f177.google.com (mail-oi1-f177.google.com [209.85.167.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 637DE53E0D for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dabbelt.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dabbelt.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dabbelt-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@dabbelt-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="QAPyiDd3" Received: by mail-oi1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3bbc5636b8eso3539667b6e.2 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:20:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dabbelt-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1704993647; x=1705598447; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:to:from:cc :in-reply-to:subject:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=FuBWFfCHQEYOGFXSXRVh/tqOJZ9yfBHx65XIDHm7aYE=; b=QAPyiDd35PzO8dByv/cadhL61C5oLjuGEodyV3K5c8ntP23iGSniIyM/UGQBexlXHt OhI8cFQUm0N9gXF5Wc19tjX1Qx78VOcEzo0aFUVfPSR7SX4PsfhW4hyV/DFybLTpqMR6 OK7DIFMEEsVuiRBvUPHW/5jW7sKHDJcK8WOCf7p+a2Cgb0sXCUb32qX9/4sZJs+kuF8P bpe8uJYjqJGs5i6+fh8kik/CReRg/fIO9y8tOiZp3qhB6Mpzynk4cufJCSIqEwBTalMm etYD4yECKhBIT7D4aaRg6iHwWLS7ObFj/X4nmtdJwPYqf3JGwYhopDZxZw206SzwJR3i YpSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704993647; x=1705598447; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:to:from:cc :in-reply-to:subject:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=FuBWFfCHQEYOGFXSXRVh/tqOJZ9yfBHx65XIDHm7aYE=; b=nFr+eJnmLisM9jptf4XeiixitYOeAaGghQCaB7tyjkUKoMExuf+FgR8m0b7x8nHy4h Lsk5jfvSqMxWH7dNltcA1y4Ke+hIIIBTyCuQ8VRXHAYjyYDF4316AYlXxCBPldSF2o3k Zu/p+sBzk0yrz3/9/qynH67B5Hw9sTvtl8IU6hXVKEJ7B40kinLUPRyY8hkSmvF5nL3W ffzuBIwQ3SnhcKts/MoquxYb09uswY8c2sJlqOIENkKrhugMK6j8xgtrGJatqLn2pzIr cAn3YIK14YjOvPZ0+zyOrtMwV5lK8uhREmzyT12DC42I42yA/2zBSvGJXc2CSuSi3HTr cNkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw+WEgi9oYXjS9wOUtP2g7DGhNeF9dDAwu/jrTF+hF85F1R9TDx l+lvqIxdMYtvlSIPEeI4PJ5z4OS4V3wDm44rxAxu0sAa0IA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEYJoi8L5o7NZjCk6vxWflMf4h5WF3d3ZwonWK1q6oYAkVZoWQKyTEkkE/k3b59xti7Cy7eow== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:3845:b0:3bd:539a:f252 with SMTP id ej5-20020a056808384500b003bd539af252mr1633244oib.109.1704993647336; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:20:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([192.184.165.199]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q2-20020a0568080a8200b003bd368cd4d7sm229110oij.6.2024.01.11.09.20.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:20:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:20:44 PST (-0800) Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with Linus' tree In-Reply-To: <20240108094957.2cc727e0@canb.auug.org.au> CC: Paul Walmsley , ajones@ventanamicro.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org From: Palmer Dabbelt To: Stephen Rothwell Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 14:49:57 PST (-0800), Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in: > > arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c > > between commit: > > 777c0d761be7 ("RISC-V: hwprobe: Always use u64 for extension bits") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 53b2b22850e1 ("RISC-V: Move the hwprobe syscall to its own file") > > from the risc-v tree. > > I fixed it up (I used the latter version of this file and applied the > following merge fix patch) 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. > > From: Stephen Rothwell > Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:46:10 +1100 > Subject: [PATCH] fix up for "RISC-V: Move the hwprobe syscall to its own file" > > interacting with commit > > 777c0d761be7 ("RISC-V: hwprobe: Always use u64 for extension bits") > > from Linus' tree. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell > --- > arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c > index ccf61b040536..41f45acb156b 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c > @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair, > pair->value &= ~missing; > } > > -static bool hwprobe_ext0_has(const struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long ext) > +static bool hwprobe_ext0_has(const struct cpumask *cpus, u64 ext) > { > struct riscv_hwprobe pair; > > -- > 2.43.0 > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell Sorry, I think I screwed this up a few times. I've got something on linux-next as of this morning that I think should be sane.