* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip-core tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c between commit
> 92ab78315c638515d0e81b0c70b2082f713582d9 ("x86/Voyager: make it build and
> boot") from Linus' tree and commit
> 552be871e67ff577ed36beb2f53d078b42304739 ("x86: pass in cpu number to
> switch_to_new_gdt()") from the tip-core tree.
>
> I used the resolution from tip/master (see below -worth checking that I
> got it right). (Though I assume that there is no reason that the other
> uses of smp_processor_id() in voyager_smp_prepare_boot_cpu could be
> replaced by "cpu" as well?)
Thanks!
Note that the x86/Voyager code will have to be totally reworked ontop of the
new x86 subarch code and that the cpumask logic there is largely obsolete
(in the context of linux-next) and cannot be triggered via any
Kconfig-reachable build mode anymore.
I've pushed out a next tip/auto-core-next branch so the conflict should
disappear from your tree.
Note that there's another upcoming conflict, in arch/x86/mm/fault.c, due to
this upstream commit from a few hours ago:
9be260a: prevent kprobes from catching spurious page faults
This will conflict both with the pagefault cleanups in tip/x86/mm and with
tip/kmemcheck so it's a non-trivial 3-way conflict. I've resolved the
conflicts explicitly on the Git level and pushed out a freshly integrated
x86-next, core-next and kmemcheck-next tree as well - so you should not be
seeing conflicts in that area.
Note: take care because these trees also contain a lot of new stuff: the x86
APIC and subarch rewrite, the shiny new percpu changes and cleanup and more.
Let us know if you run into any trouble with them.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
