Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the risc-v tree

Kefeng Wang
2020-12-17T02:19:34Z

On 2020/12/17 9:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:34:41 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/riscv/Kconfig
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 5cb0080f1bfd ("riscv: Enable ARCH_STACKWALK")
>>
>> from the risc-v tree and commit:
>>
>> 46b9b00649f6 ("arch, mm: restore dependency of __kernel_map_pages() on DEBUG_PAGEALLOC")
>>
>> from the akpm-current 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.
>>
>>
>> diff --cc arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> index 8a2a0523a9a3,9283c6f9ae2a..000000000000
>> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> @@@ -14,7 -14,7 +14,8 @@@ config RISC
>> def_bool y
>> select ARCH_CLOCKSOURCE_INIT
>> select ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW
>> + select ARCH_STACKWALK
>> + select ARCH_SUPPORTS_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC if MMU
>> select ARCH_HAS_BINFMT_FLAT
>> select ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_VM_PGTABLE
>> select ARCH_HAS_DEBUG_VIRTUAL if MMU
> This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.

Could it be fixed in alphabetical order when merging riscv tree?

>