Hi Rich,
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:55:03 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 03:13:42PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > 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?
Just mention it to Linus.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
--
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
