From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Brezillon Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nand tree with the jc_docs tree Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 09:21:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20170530092137.2b6890be@bbrezillon> References: <20170530113723.5b7ac9f1@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:42305 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750821AbdE3HVu (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 May 2017 03:21:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170530113723.5b7ac9f1@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Hi Stephen, On Tue, 30 May 2017 11:37:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Boris, > > Today's linux-next merge of the nand tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > > between commit: > > b6f6c29454d2 ("mtd: adjust kernel-docs to avoid Sphinx/kerneldoc warnings") > > from the jc_docs tree and commit: > > c79d63fd272c ("mtd: nand: Remove support for block locking/unlocking") > > from the nand tree. > > I fixed it up (the latter just removed the code modified by the former, > so I did that) 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 just dropped commit c79d63fd272c from my nand/next branch. I'll queue it for the next release. Thanks, Boris