linux-next: manual merge of the livepatching tree with the powerpc tree

linux-next: manual merge of the livepatching tree with the powerpc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jiri,

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

  arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c

between commit:

  7f92bc569455 ("powerpc: sparse: Include headers for __weak symbols")

from the powerpc tree and commit:

  5d31a96e6c01 ("powerpc/livepatch: Add livepatch stack to struct thread_info")

from the livepatching 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

diff --cc arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
index 4695088e7dd2,a290ee374aa0..000000000000
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
@@@ -56,7 -55,8 +56,9 @@@
  #include <asm/firmware.h>
  #endif
  #include <asm/code-patching.h>
 +#include <asm/exec.h>
+ #include <asm/livepatch.h>
+ 
  #include <linux/kprobes.h>
  #include <linux/kdebug.h>
  

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the livepatching tree with the powerpc tree

[Michael Ellerman]

On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 14:27 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the livepatching tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   7f92bc569455 ("powerpc: sparse: Include headers for __weak symbols")
> 
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
> 
>   5d31a96e6c01 ("powerpc/livepatch: Add livepatch stack to struct thread_info")
> 
> from the livepatching 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.

Thanks.

This should go away tomorrow because then my next will have the topic branch
merged.

cheers