From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF21C79949; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:47:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706658475; cv=none; b=E8UDGp+63wSOOuWPrwkgT93W/A5YjUWFApQnZEDNXppDuYEeG2i4PnnkiI/krSnYpua01wHXOWe6W0iqLNJxJjaAGzj4p9EnjCb7Wq8OWloV6NgrGFZR0SvZTWOcwblFeTenpmT/+0umE17q3NGZI1XXLDTKmKvHUjfVXdsjxOE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706658475; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gctvI4c91ZSe947+t3hshpyres3oHGTht00pgMABwFQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qtPvtqAwATnnGWmlJw26pEeDGH5dvxG/4/QXfyffbzi5dcU5LSfIdVbL4jPpN+hRf4bMme03bMDP03CraHZhltr/YhSZ8TfF3zPHAtJt/rDnroFjnusSIl7EGwwwImMn64hEftjSwyoeOYRwR9TS6gEHMG923ufDujC0KaKpdsU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=iPYjb+MK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="iPYjb+MK" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 49EC341A47 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1706658467; bh=YSz7eSIovPWVPhBp2QrZNSSUITddjIeIoqMEKbJWRGA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=iPYjb+MKZtw+jS8PLorMz2kanellKAa+RfVkuG7ywSujVT8Ed4wJSZZckc3LBv3mp tvtgGJiIF3eSsevqCmoF/+VXNXN+l40A3WDqvy0FWTBMw9mV1erUDggnbmQOBW6fQz 1FFR1bvpagKpWyTX3vM80tEZiwXgPTjHlnBzkXOIku85AP947u+MGkgqxvmyeF2JB+ DFWTcuCSVCJO1ubG71SDpLPJgUMERTwmi2bzheJZY9Fa2VKQfximKhPK6xu4eKAUcz Sa3ru1yGlyIsSKkPtTD2eP0IffxnmzkGpeFFVG4mw85ZXrnVp5BVogQdczgDoSCKr1 osUsjZNz//Hbg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:7e19::646]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49EC341A47; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:47:47 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Randy Dunlap , Udipto Goswami Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the usb.current tree In-Reply-To: <2024013009-helium-woozy-c6c2@gregkh> References: <20240131095231.292911c3@canb.auug.org.au> <2024013009-helium-woozy-c6c2@gregkh> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:47:46 -0700 Message-ID: <87le868jtp.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Greg Kroah-Hartman writes: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:52:31AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in: >> >> Documentation/usb/gadget-testing.rst >> >> between commit: >> >> 20d03ae36ec0 ("usb: gadget: ncm: Fix indentations in documentation of NCM section") >> >> from the usb.current tree and commit: >> >> e49bf650ab5b ("usb: gadget: fix max_segment_size malformed table") >> >> from the jc_docs tree. >> >> I fixed it up (these commits fix the same problem, I used the former) 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. > > Fixup sounds good, thanks! OK, fine, I'll drop the patch out of docs-next. Thanks, jon