Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1646500 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-22 05:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-05-23 10:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-05-22 05:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-05-22 10:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-05-22 23:50 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-05-23 10:40 +0200
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 05:40 +0200 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree |
| Message-ID | <tJMml-8wg-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
between commit:
63a1e1c95e60 ("arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path")
from Linus' tree and commit:
d54bb72551b9 ("arm64/cpufeature: Use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()")
from the tip tree.
I have no idea what the correct resolution is here, so I have just gone
with the former for now (i.e. removed the
static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() call). This will probably need a
better (or even correct :-)) fix.
I fixed it up (see above) 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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tJR2F-382-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1646500 |
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 01:27:11PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi,
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 63a1e1c95e60 ("arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> d54bb72551b9 ("arm64/cpufeature: Use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()")
>
> from the tip tree.
Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date?
That latter commit was in the tip smp/hotplug branch, but that branch
was reset to v4.12-rc1 a few days ago (before the first commit was sent
to Linus), specifically to avoid this conflict.
... did we miss another branch that was merged into, perhaps?
> I have no idea what the correct resolution is here, so I have just gone
> with the former for now (i.e. removed the
> static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() call). This will probably need a
> better (or even correct :-)) fix.
The good news is that the commit in Linus' tree is the correct fix. :)
The other commit was a slightly broken prior attempt, and shouldn't be
in the tip tree any more.
> I fixed it up (see above) 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.
We tried, but evidently something went wrong. :/
Thanks,
Mark.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 23:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tK3nb-2zS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1646606 |
Hi Mark, On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:32:15 +0100 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date? Yes, it was fetched just before being merged. I use the auto-latest branch of the tip tree which may not be as up to date as the master branch. > That latter commit was in the tip smp/hotplug branch, but that branch > was reset to v4.12-rc1 a few days ago (before the first commit was sent > to Linus), specifically to avoid this conflict. > > ... did we miss another branch that was merged into, perhaps? Presumably, but that's ok - I assume it will come good eventually. > The good news is that the commit in Linus' tree is the correct fix. :) Well, except that I only fixed up that one spot, the rest of the commit from the tip tree was still there. > The other commit was a slightly broken prior attempt, and shouldn't be > in the tip tree any more. OK. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tKdwf-Fm-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1647419 |
Hi Stephen, On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 07:44:56AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:32:15 +0100 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > > Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date? > > Yes, it was fetched just before being merged. I use the auto-latest > branch of the tip tree which may not be as up to date as the master > branch. Thanks for the pointer; there was a stale copy there, which has now been zapped. Hopefully we're conflict-free for next-20170524. Thanks for the heads-up! Mark.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web