From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Parri Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc_docs tree Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 15:28:24 +0200 Message-ID: <20180509132824.GA14503@andrea> References: <20180509202508.15c3435a@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180509202508.15c3435a@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , Jonathan Corbet , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Laurent Dufour List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:25:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/features/vm/pte_special/arch-support.txt > > between commit: > > 2bef69a385b4 ("Documentation/features/vm: Remove arch support status file for 'pte_special'") > > from the jc_docs tree and commit: > > 1099dc900e93 ("mm: introduce ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL") > > from the akpm-current tree. > > I fixed it up (the former removed the file, 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. > > BTW, it would be nice if the the question "Why was this file removed?" was > answered by that jc_docs commit message ... I actually wonder if this > file needs to return (I have no way of knowing). My bad; thanks for pointing this out. Mmh... "why" would have been something like "the feature has no Kconfig". ;-) I defer to your (community) decision regarding "if this file needs to return" (Cc-ing Ingo, who created the file and also suggested its removal); I remain available for preparing the patch to restore (and refresh) this file, should you agree with this approach. Andrea > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell