Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the powerpc-fixes tree

[Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:17:30PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   35e32a6cb5f6 ("powerpc/syscalls: Split SPU-ness out of ABI")
> >
> > from the powerpc-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> >   9b4feb630e8e ("arch: wire-up close_range()")
> >
> > from the pidfd 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.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I thought the week between rc1 and rc2 would be a safe time to do that
> conversion of the syscall table, but I guess I was wrong :)

:)

> 
> I'm planning to send those changes to Linus for rc2, so the conflict
> will then be vs mainline. But I guess it's pretty trivial so it doesn't
> really matter.

close_range() is targeted for the v5.9 merge window. I always do
test-merges with mainline at the time I'm creating a pr and I'll just
mention to Linus that there's conflict with ppc. :)

Thanks!
Christian