From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Darren Hart Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with Linus' tree Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:27:50 -0700 Message-ID: <20150603032750.GA49670@vmdeb7> References: <20150602160723.3b519d63@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:43826 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751481AbbFCD2B (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:28:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150602160723.3b519d63@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Philippe Coval , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Tunin On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:07:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Darren, > > Today's linux-next merge of the drivers-x86 tree got a conflict in > drivers/platform/x86/ideapad-laptop.c between commit 9b071a43553d > ("ideapad_laptop: Add Lenovo G40-30 to devices without radio switch") > from Linus' tree and commit 4fa9dabcffc8 ("ideapad_laptop: Lenovo > G50-30 fix rfkill reports wireless blocked") from the drivers-x86 tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > is required). Thanks for the heads' up. This happens because my -next branch is based on *-rc1 as I think was recommended at the last kernel summit. Since rc1 I sent Linus the G50-30, but by rc6 I didn't feel good about sending the similar G50-30 fix, so that is in my rc1 branch. I am happy to rebase my -next on rc6 to avoid the conflict, but I believe the rebase is considered poor practice. You said no action required, but if there is something I can do to avoid this kind of manual effort on your part (and a manual merge by Linus in the upcoming merge window), I'm happy to update my process to accommodate. Thanks, -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center