Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc_docs tree

Andrea Parri
2018-05-09T13:30:36Z

Really Cc-ing Ingo:

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 03:28:24PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> 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
>
>