From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935038AbeEIN2e (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 09:28:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:42351 "EHLO mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935055AbeEIN2c (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 09:28:32 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpzUhmPBY3yLfYAESkt4DJ2KFBhlJerJTqZOboR6M0/3y4gFsHkU5gWsrwXzWDxgyvQqnOUfQ== Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 15:28:24 +0200 From: Andrea Parri To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , Jonathan Corbet , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Laurent Dufour Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc_docs tree Message-ID: <20180509132824.GA14503@andrea> References: <20180509202508.15c3435a@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180509202508.15c3435a@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:25:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/features/vm/pte_special/arch-support.txt > > between commit: > > 2bef69a385b4 ("Documentation/features/vm: Remove arch support status file for 'pte_special'") > > from the jc_docs tree and commit: > > 1099dc900e93 ("mm: introduce ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL") > > from the akpm-current tree. > > I fixed it up (the former removed the file, so I did that) 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. > > BTW, it would be nice if the the question "Why was this file removed?" was > answered by that jc_docs commit message ... I actually wonder if this > file needs to return (I have no way of knowing). My bad; thanks for pointing this out. Mmh... "why" would have been something like "the feature has no Kconfig". ;-) I defer to your (community) decision regarding "if this file needs to return" (Cc-ing Ingo, who created the file and also suggested its removal); I remain available for preparing the patch to restore (and refresh) this file, should you agree with this approach. Andrea > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell