From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suzuki K Poulose Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:27:12 +0000 Message-ID: <0e7534a0-ae7b-7968-d97b-b3dec9a7be8d@arm.com> References: <20181207091847.1db6a48e@canb.auug.org.au> <20181207121609.GA26721@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181207121609.GA26721@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Will Deacon , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Catalin Marinas , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Will, Stephen On 07/12/2018 12:16, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 09:18:47AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c >> >> between commit: >> >> ce8c80c536da ("arm64: Add workaround for Cortex-A76 erratum 1286807") >> >> from Linus' tree and commit: >> >> c9460dcb06ee ("arm64: capabilities: Merge entries for ARM64_WORKAROUND_CLEAN_CACHE") >> >> from the arm64 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, Stephen, this looks correct to me. Suzuki -- can you please confirm? > Yes, it looks correct to me did a boot test. Thanks Stephen! Cheers Suzuki