From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751406AbeBTUPe (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:15:34 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:3022 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750985AbeBTUPd (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:15:33 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,541,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="176757438" Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:15:32 -0800 From: Rodrigo Vivi To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Dave Airlie , DRI , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20180220201532.GI27433@intel.com> References: <20180219101050.0a1514e5@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180219101050.0a1514e5@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:10:50AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c > > between commit: > > 117172c8f9d4 ("drm/i915/breadcrumbs: Ignore unsubmitted signalers") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > b7a3f33bd5ab ("drm/i915/breadcrumbs: Drop request reference for the signaler thread") > > from the drm tree. > > These are basically identical for the conflicting section except that > the former added a line: > > GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_gem_request_completed(request)); > > which I left in. > > I fixed it up (see above) 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. For this and for the PMU one, I'm really sorry. I believe I should had mentioned this to Dave when sending pull request for drm-intel-fixes. I didn't mentioned because for what fixes is concerned this shouldn't be a problem, but I totally forgot about linux-next. Please accept my apologies. Do you use any rerere on linux-next? I wonder if drm-rerere could be used somehow here to simplify this process of propagating conflicts resolutions like this. Thanks, Rodrigo. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel