From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Fernandes Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the powerpc tree Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:40:57 -0800 Message-ID: <20181207014057.GA214249@google.com> References: <20181206174417.45fe3e7a@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181206174417.45fe3e7a@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , PowerPC , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christophe Leroy List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:44:17PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/32/pgalloc.h > arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/32/pgalloc.h > arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-book3s64.c > > between commits: > > a95d133c8643 ("powerpc/mm: Move pte_fragment_alloc() to a common location") > 32ea4c149990 ("powerpc/mm: Extend pte_fragment functionality to PPC32") > > from the powerpc tree and commit: > > 913c2d755b39 ("mm: treewide: remove unused address argument from pte_alloc functions") > > from the akpm-current tree. > > I fixed it up (see below, plus the extra merge fix patch) 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 conflict resolution looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) thanks, - Joel