linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the lightnvm tree

linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the lightnvm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/lightnvm/core.c

between commit:

  7b0d392f6957 ("lightnvm: remove sysfs configuration interface")

from the lightnvm tree and commit:

  389b2a1c0e90 ("lightnvm: make core.c explicitly non-modular")

from the char-misc tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the code that was commented by the
latter, so I just removed it) 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.

I do wonder why commit 389b2a1c0e90 is in the char-misc tree and not
the lightnvm or block trees?
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the lightnvm tree

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 06:29:08PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   7b0d392f6957 ("lightnvm: remove sysfs configuration interface")
> 
> from the lightnvm tree and commit:
> 
>   389b2a1c0e90 ("lightnvm: make core.c explicitly non-modular")
> 
> from the char-misc tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code that was commented by the
> latter, so I just removed it) 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.
> 
> I do wonder why commit 389b2a1c0e90 is in the char-misc tree and not
> the lightnvm or block trees?

Because of a call to builtin_misc_device() which came into the char-misc
tree.  Thanks for resolving the merge issue.

greg k-h

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the lightnvm tree

[Matias Bjørling]

On 11/22/2016 08:29 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   7b0d392f6957 ("lightnvm: remove sysfs configuration interface")
> 
> from the lightnvm tree and commit:
> 
>   389b2a1c0e90 ("lightnvm: make core.c explicitly non-modular")
> 
> from the char-misc tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code that was commented by the
> latter, so I just removed it) 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.
> 
> I do wonder why commit 389b2a1c0e90 is in the char-misc tree and not
> the lightnvm or block trees?
> 

greg beat me to it. Thanks for fixing it up Stephen.

-matias

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the lightnvm tree

[Paul Gortmaker]

[linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the lightnvm tree] On 22/11/2016 (Tue 18:29) Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/lightnvm/core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   7b0d392f6957 ("lightnvm: remove sysfs configuration interface")
> 
> from the lightnvm tree and commit:
> 
>   389b2a1c0e90 ("lightnvm: make core.c explicitly non-modular")
> 
> from the char-misc tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code that was commented by the
> latter, so I just removed it) 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.
> 
> I do wonder why commit 389b2a1c0e90 is in the char-misc tree and not
> the lightnvm or block trees?

It relied on the new macro builtin_misc_device which came in via
char-misc.  I was going to wait a release but Greg said he'd be willing
to take the patch in his tree concurrently.

P.
--

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell