From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755154AbcLBFI5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2016 00:08:57 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:53708 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750AbcLBFIy (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2016 00:08:54 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org 7F90061271 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Wireless , David Miller , Networking , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sara Sharon , Johannes Berg , Rajkumar Manoharan Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the net-next tree References: <20161202110313.2104919e@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 07:08:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20161202110313.2104919e@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:03:13 +1100") Message-ID: <87polark7z.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree got a > conflict in: > > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c > > between commit: > > f3fe4e93dd63 ("mac80211: add a HW flag for supporting HW TX fragmentation") > > from the net-next tree and commit: > > ff32eeb86aa1 ("ath10k: advertize hardware packet loss mechanism") > > from the wireless-drivers-next 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. The fix looks good, thanks. I sent a pull request to Dave yesteday which should fix this. -- Kalle Valo