On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 02:37:26PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ef91afa61088 ("edac: move documentation from edac_mc.c to edac_core.h")
>
> from the edac tree and commit:
>
> c73e8833bec5 ("EDAC, mc: Fix locking around mc_devices list")
>
> from the edac-amd tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below - there may be more fixes needed in
> edac_core.h) 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.
Just one issue which has nothing to do with linux-next. There's still
that in ef91afa61088:
> +/**
> + * edac_mc_find: Search for a mem_ctl_info structure whose index is @idx.
> + *
> + * @idx: index to be seek
> + *
> + * If found, return a pointer to the structure.
> + * Else return NULL.
> + *
> + * Caller must hold mem_ctls_mutex.
> + */
That last sentence in the comment is not true anymore - edac_mc_find()
is grabbing the mutex itself as it should be. Mauro, please fix that in
your tree.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
--
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
