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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 E05F0C433FF for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:00:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71E1208C2 for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:00:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565773257; bh=fv/ZdU246p/5qy812w3lXY0nGq8ygs2Wu6GV4nOHlOA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=tIi1y4jxlsIxeMdD8T6T+A5empNnBGdVYing8z3jdqEAij44DLSg5luAmwUo1UmzJ 4SCU7CPl5arjOecAzArOe3H3qWQIyPPUVvyV/z6Q0f5ImQUPqRYrHJAr9otmPv/LwI S+R8KgA8uOZsL0cYzoTwV3TWXta3OCu1Fnk0xCEw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726512AbfHNJA4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 05:00:56 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:43604 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725955AbfHNJA4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 05:00:56 -0400 Received: from willie-the-truck (236.31.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.31.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C2D4205F4; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:00:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1565773255; bh=fv/ZdU246p/5qy812w3lXY0nGq8ygs2Wu6GV4nOHlOA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kIx/eLPGVFxMcw7npmnquDzvRi55iR7TqmtRsPDLZ0K5D3Y7f6OzDI5B2LIp0Yn1T RE2++kH938do7pDBu/P5eFkucJogf8EAeIeJ57FhmsfZ+xw//Z9AbXSuR8hbYxVSfj XLL5/0Q9uUQLXEiiPSJWA1KaE26t+O2RoYSB8Y+Y= Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:00:51 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Palmer Dabbelt , Catalin Marinas , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jeremy Linton , Atish Patra Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the arm64 tree Message-ID: <20190814090051.2qzhglnz4452avdc@willie-the-truck> References: <20190813093447.747a5853@canb.auug.org.au> <20190813082422.lecgqtknnn5g4dyj@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:24:30PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:34:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > 98dc19902a0b ("arm64: topology: Use PPTT to determine if PE is a thread") > > > > > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > > > > > 60c1b220d8bc ("cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.") > > > > > > from the risc-v 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, Stephen. > > > > Paul, Palmer -- If it's not too late, then it would probably be best to > > stick this commit (60c1b220d8bc) and any dependencies on their own stable > > branch so that we can both pull it into our respective trees and I can > > resolve this conflict in the arm64 tree, which I'll send early during the > > merge window. > > > > Looking at your tree, I guess I could just pull in > > common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology if you promise never to rebase it. Failing > > that, you could fork a new branch from 60c1b220d8bc and I could just pull > > that part instead. > > How about if we treat common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology as a stable branch? > I wasn't planning to rebase it. Then both of us can just merge it into > our for-next branches for the merge window? (It looks like I will need to > rebuild the riscv for-next branch on top of v5.3-rc5, for unrelated > reasons.) > > Sound reasonable? Cheers, Paul. Sounds good to me. Will