Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 May 2022 14:15:46 +1000 | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the m68knommu tree with the m68k tree | From | Greg Ungerer <> |
| |
Hi Michael,
On 10/5/22 13:37, Michael Schmitz wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > apologies on my part - I had thought that I had copied in Greg on my patch series. And I evidently missed that his ELF patch would have clashed with mine.
You definitely did, I still have your patches in my inbox too :-)
> Geert and Greg coordinate well as a rule, and both patches had been seen on the linux-m68k mailing list (just too far apart to jog my memory).
Yeah, this was really an accident of timing between Geert applying your series to his for-next branch, and me applying the regset changes to my for-next branch.
The two changes are quite distinct, but they overlap in location within ptrace.c file. The fixup patch is pretty strait forward, and Stephen has that right.
Regards Greg
> Won't happen again this decade (I hope). > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > Am 10.05.2022 um 11:44 schrieb Stephen Rothwell: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the m68knommu tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/m68k/kernel/ptrace.c >> >> between commit: >> >> c862fe70b023 ("m68k: Wire up syscall_trace_enter/leave for m68k") >> >> from the m68k tree and commit: >> >> 0d91043d8bdf ("m68knommu: implement minimal regset support") >> >> from the m68knommu 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. >>
| |