From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753359AbcC3AcT (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:32:19 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:53911 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751712AbcC3AcR (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:32:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:32:14 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Gortmaker Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20160330113214.4110cd63@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Paul, Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in: kernel/rcu/tree.c between commit: abedf8e2419f ("rcu: Use simple wait queues where possible in rcutree") from Linus' tree and commit: 08cace5914ea ("DIAGS: Crude exploratory hack") from the rcu tree. I fixed it up (I used the rcu tree version) 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. I really don't think that that rcu tree patch should be in linux-next, right? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell