lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the powerpc-fixes tree
    On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:17:30PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
    > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
    > >
    > > arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
    > >
    > > between commit:
    > >
    > > 35e32a6cb5f6 ("powerpc/syscalls: Split SPU-ness out of ABI")
    > >
    > > from the powerpc-fixes tree and commit:
    > >
    > > 9b4feb630e8e ("arch: wire-up close_range()")
    > >
    > > from the pidfd 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.
    >
    > I thought the week between rc1 and rc2 would be a safe time to do that
    > conversion of the syscall table, but I guess I was wrong :)

    :)

    >
    > I'm planning to send those changes to Linus for rc2, so the conflict
    > will then be vs mainline. But I guess it's pretty trivial so it doesn't
    > really matter.

    close_range() is targeted for the v5.9 merge window. I always do
    test-merges with mainline at the time I'm creating a pr and I'll just
    mention to Linus that there's conflict with ppc. :)

    Thanks!
    Christian

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-06-19 16:03    [W:3.619 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site