From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:31:59 +0000 Message-ID: <20161122133158.GG28723@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20161122103458.1f10bcbc@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:55884 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755697AbcKVNcD (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:32:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161122103458.1f10bcbc@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , Suzuki K Poulose Hi Stephen, On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:34:58AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in: > > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h > > between commit: > > 272d01bd790f ("arm64: Fix circular include of asm/lse.h through linux/jump_label.h") > > from Linus' tree and commits: > > a4023f682739 ("arm64: Add hypervisor safe helper for checking constant capabilities") > 82e0191a1aa1 ("arm64: Support systems without FP/ASIMD") > > 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. The merge resolution and additional patch look fine. Thanks. -- Catalin