From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754777AbdKOBZh (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:25:37 -0500 Received: from osg.samsung.com ([64.30.133.232]:45515 "EHLO osg.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752092AbdKOBZ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:25:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:25:20 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Sakari Ailus Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Greg KH , Mark Brown , Aishwarya Pant , Branislav Radocaj , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the media tree Message-ID: <20171114232520.1079a5c3@vento.lan> In-Reply-To: <20171114232805.vvb5jbpf4fuwkw76@kekkonen.localdomain> References: <20171009182653.5phanxtnwwtrx34e@sirena.co.uk> <20171113162433.3ad70a11@canb.auug.org.au> <20171114232805.vvb5jbpf4fuwkw76@kekkonen.localdomain> Organization: Samsung X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:28:06 +0200 Sakari Ailus escreveu: > Hi Stephen, Greg, others, > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:24:47PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 19:26:54 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/atomisp2/css2400/sh_css_firmware.c > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > 866af46e6ebbc ("media: Staging: atomisp: fix alloc_cast.cocci warnings") > > > > > > from the media tree and commit: > > > > > > 4d962df5a7771 ("atomisp2: remove cast from memory allocation") > > > > > > from the staging 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. > > > > Just a reminder that this conflict still exists. > > Both patches essentially contain the same change, the difference is in the > indentation only. There's a number of atomisp patches in the media tree, > how about simply reverting the patch in the staging tree? Today morning I merged the changeset from staging tree that Greg sent to Linux (and that was already merged upstream), solving the conflict. So, except if something else pops up, the conflict at -next will cease to exist after it gets merged back there :-) Regards, Mauro