On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 03:13:42PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/sh/include/asm/spinlock.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 2da83dfce7df ("sh: add J2 atomics using the cas.l instruction")
>
> from the sh tree and commit:
>
> 726328d92a42 ("locking/spinlock, arch: Update and fix spin_unlock_wait() implementations")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used this file from the sh tree and then added the merge
> fix patch 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.
Assuming the J2 SMP changes go upstream this merge window, should I
simply cite this conflict and your patch when sending the pull request
to Linux, or include the merge fix patch myself?
Rich
--
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
