From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rich Felker Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the sh tree Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:55:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20160725035503.GQ15995@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20160724151342.32b35c80@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from 216-12-86-13.cv.mvl.ntelos.net ([216.12.86.13]:59175 "EHLO brightrain.aerifal.cx" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752585AbcGYD5P (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:57:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160724151342.32b35c80@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 03:13:42PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/sh/include/asm/spinlock.h > > between commit: > > 2da83dfce7df ("sh: add J2 atomics using the cas.l instruction") > > from the sh tree and commit: > > 726328d92a42 ("locking/spinlock, arch: Update and fix spin_unlock_wait() implementations") > > from the tip tree. > > I fixed it up (I used this file from the sh tree and then added the merge > fix patch 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. Assuming the J2 SMP changes go upstream this merge window, should I simply cite this conflict and your patch when sending the pull request to Linux, or include the merge fix patch myself? Rich