From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the phy-next tree with the qcom tree Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:59:09 +1000 Message-ID: <20190418175909.76f16930@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20190418152954.255015e1@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/+AshyETYX/BeJTHUPqiBhL2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Gonzalez Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Andy Gross , Linux Next , LKML , Bjorn Andersson , Jeffrey Hugo List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --Sig_/+AshyETYX/BeJTHUPqiBhL2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Marc, On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:35:44 +0200 Marc Gonzalez = wrote: > > It is not clear to me what I could/should have done differently to avoid > the conflict? Nothing really, it will need to be fixed up when these trees are merged into Linus' tree (or some other tree along the way). It is not a big problem as the conflict is pretty simple. I send the emails just so people can see what I think the resolution should be and correct me if I am mistaken. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/+AshyETYX/BeJTHUPqiBhL2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAly4Lk0ACgkQAVBC80lX 0GzyxQgAjLDPt/0aB7gYWTpzZ4eyr5+ZNBefenCqyThvkmhre+oktf96SM94dk/S Lo6H+dlw2JLJiSMaHKouImgFGAWcPY2iwRRhcSO2tv2HUdu2VNbXCoNf8qcGytO7 8e9HsyIOIsRAWAg00B6i1OKIZ802860yHj7ZPuYICCmELRlltamwPrcqKo/CFxGc QV3zTFp8Cx9M8/ZQ+KrykfaCAbrOSmYRgYLoBr3ZinU5je4ucBVsZvE6s1M0TLAl knn0CYx5U00w9IR+GqyulwSFRBa9HQhD4qI/+Xmo+BtkvlRs+/IMna6EIfsjIf4G gksIPkytUs2j/fssD2t8LBlRRdGqxw== =FrcR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/+AshyETYX/BeJTHUPqiBhL2--