All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the powerpc tree
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:40:57 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181207014057.GA214249@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181206174417.45fe3e7a@canb.auug.org.au>

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:44:17PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/32/pgalloc.h
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/32/pgalloc.h
>   arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-book3s64.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   a95d133c8643 ("powerpc/mm: Move pte_fragment_alloc() to a common location")
>   32ea4c149990 ("powerpc/mm: Extend pte_fragment functionality to PPC32")
> 
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
> 
>   913c2d755b39 ("mm: treewide: remove unused address argument from pte_alloc functions")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below, plus the extra merge fix patch) 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.

The conflict resolution looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>

thanks,

 - Joel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the powerpc tree
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:40:57 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181207014057.GA214249@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181206174417.45fe3e7a@canb.auug.org.au>

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:44:17PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/32/pgalloc.h
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/32/pgalloc.h
>   arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-book3s64.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   a95d133c8643 ("powerpc/mm: Move pte_fragment_alloc() to a common location")
>   32ea4c149990 ("powerpc/mm: Extend pte_fragment functionality to PPC32")
> 
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
> 
>   913c2d755b39 ("mm: treewide: remove unused address argument from pte_alloc functions")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below, plus the extra merge fix patch) 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.

The conflict resolution looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>

thanks,

 - Joel

  reply	other threads:[~2018-12-07  1:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-06  6:44 linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the powerpc tree Stephen Rothwell
2018-12-06  6:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2018-12-07  1:40 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2018-12-07  1:40   ` Joel Fernandes
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-06-18  9:44 Stephen Rothwell
2021-06-18  9:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-06-19  2:54 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-06-19  2:54   ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-05-05  1:39 Stephen Rothwell
2021-05-05  1:39 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-05-05  4:57 ` Michael Ellerman
2021-05-05  4:57   ` Michael Ellerman
2021-05-05  5:46   ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-05-05  5:46     ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-05-05 23:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-05-05 23:43   ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-15  9:44 Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-15  9:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-15  9:58 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-15  9:58   ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-15 10:07   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 10:07     ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 10:08     ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 10:08       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 10:15       ` Christophe Leroy
2020-12-08  9:40 Stephen Rothwell
2020-12-08  9:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-12-17  0:48 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-12-17  0:48   ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-09-17  8:57 Stephen Rothwell
2020-09-17  8:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
2020-06-03  8:50 Stephen Rothwell
2020-06-03  8:50 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-07-08 11:43 Stephen Rothwell
2019-07-08 11:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-04-23  8:57 Stephen Rothwell
2019-04-23  8:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-02-25  6:42 Stephen Rothwell
2019-02-25  6:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-02-25  6:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-02-25  6:44   ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-02-25  6:16 Stephen Rothwell
2019-02-25  6:16 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-05-02  7:20 Stephen Rothwell
2016-05-02 11:17 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2016-03-04  7:49 Stephen Rothwell
2016-03-04  7:49 ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-18  5:33 Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-18  5:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-01-07  9:15 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-01-07  9:15   ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-01-07 17:15   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2016-01-07 20:03     ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-15  5:53 Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-15  5:53 ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-15  6:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-15  6:44   ` Stephen Rothwell
2015-12-15  9:37 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181207014057.GA214249@google.com \
    --to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.