From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E420BC433DF for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48351206B7 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:42:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 48351206B7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ubuntu.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49pPjL2FnmzDrRV for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 02:42:14 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=ubuntu.com (client-ip=91.189.89.112; helo=youngberry.canonical.com; envelope-from=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ubuntu.com Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49pL8z4w13zDqXB for ; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 00:02:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from ip-109-41-0-196.web.vodafone.de ([109.41.0.196] helo=wittgenstein) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jmHau-0002Hs-LG; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:02:15 +0000 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:01:48 +0200 From: Christian Brauner To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the powerpc-fixes tree Message-ID: <20200619140148.4ytme4wsvtw2oyrg@wittgenstein> References: <20200618121131.4ad29150@canb.auug.org.au> <878sgjcnjp.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878sgjcnjp.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , PowerPC , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christian Brauner Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:17:30PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Stephen Rothwell 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