From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 388DD84A39; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 09:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719824876; cv=none; b=r+rQEsx0dsPGJwjRmrAztG3AN/Jmu+WZjEV48CiZq1YAVxLj4UHPrWb+ZGENdGoPhUKdqoh45VQqf1QBtLnXNtqnsqWUDBMpbzjFKfdZhEN2hjLlsqkd8priJfaykUeaMzivob/JEqhukrsupQBMqNkz9iH+dC1N4KaBazp5juw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719824876; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/IZXXZjOvtVc39q90mZgzNzvaY6DYnsWnylw+vN7b1w=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HydnpOlufiltsI3KqbQrpMgRlUutolK/HOnqGtCS4+53y0ENNCqZzI8bDrL7eycjPf9FRU6Vz30jM6T8bxZV6Fu4WTa8UddmW33l2g3IcZbxZvs7cdLAP09mIRT7J7EhqZD9uUMk2q4dGqemtjJCB89AYfRgITtDf+AM4wNm9cI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WCKs56HCCz6K9TP; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:06:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D17FC1400D1; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:07:51 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.174.77) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:07:51 +0100 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:07:50 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Stephen Rothwell CC: Yury Norov , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , James Morse , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , "Russell King (Oracle)" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bitmap tree with the arm64 tree Message-ID: <20240701100750.00002b8e@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20240701175051.0ef5d901@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20240701175051.0ef5d901@canb.auug.org.au> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.78) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:50:51 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the bitmap tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/cpumask.h > > between commit: > > 4e1a7df45480 ("cpumask: Add enabled cpumask for present CPUs that can be brought online") > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > 5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro") > > from the bitmap tree. > > I fixed it up (I just did the obvious - 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. > Thanks Stephen, We can make a similar change to the others in 5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro") but to avoid merge complexity probably easier to just do it next cycle. Jonathan