From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161063AbcFAIxU (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 04:53:20 -0400 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:46505 "EHLO pandora.armlinux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752733AbcFAIxR (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 04:53:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:52:58 +0100 From: Russell King To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Yao Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20160601085258.GP27249@flint.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20160601100746.7a731254@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160601100746.7a731254@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:07:46AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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. That wasn't intentional - I guess the "component" branch got included in for-next when I rebuilt that branch. The conflict has been around for a while (it's a conflict between code merged during the merge window, and my changes) and it will get cleaned up when I rebase my development onto -rc1. Thanks anyway. -- Russell King ARM architecture Linux Kernel maintainer