From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tty tree with the arm64 tree Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:44:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20160930054430.GB5458@kroah.com> References: <20160930133822.0bf16c41@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:57787 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936004AbcI3FxP (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:53:15 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160930133822.0bf16c41@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Catalin Marinas , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott Wood , Will Deacon , Aleksey Makarov On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 01:38:22PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tty tree got conflicts in: > > arch/arm64/Kconfig > > between commit: > > 1d8f51d41fc7 ("arm/arm64: arch_timer: Use archdata to indicate vdso suitability") > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > 888125a71298 ("ARM64: ACPI: enable ACPI_SPCR_TABLE") > > from the tty 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. Looks good to me.