On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:00:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 13:22 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:55:35PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 10:10 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > > > drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > > > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > > > 9fd4350ba895 ("B/rxe: avoid double kfree_skb") > > > > > > > > from the rdma-fixes tree and commit: > > > > > > > > 2e47350789eb ("IB/rxe: optimize the function duplicate_request") > > > > > > > > from the rdma tree. > > > > > > > > I fixed it up (I think - 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. > > > > > > > > > > We will probably merge the for-rc branch into the for-next branch in the > > > next few days, at which point we will do the conflict resolution > > > ourselves and your need to carry anything should drop out. > > > > Isn't "rdma/wip/for-testing" branch intended for this? > > Not really. It's there to provide a pre-merged branch for people to > test. But, I've rarely seen a release cycle where, *sometime*, we > didn't get a patch set in the for-next that depends on changes in the > for-rc area, and in that case, you need to merge for-rc into for-next. > If we don't have that this cycle, then you're right, I won't merge for- > rc into for-next and for-testing will be the throwaway merge branch. On > occasion, if the merge fixups needed between for-rc and for-next get too > difficult for a non-RDMA person to sus out, then we will do a merge of > for-rc into for-next simply so we can provide the right merge fixup, but > I doubt this merge fixup rises to that level. What I've been doing is storing the resolutions in for-testing and then when the PR is made I create two branches merge for-testing, for-next, linus/master merge for-next, linus/master Then I directly diff them to ensure the merge resolutions are all matching properly. ditto when merging for-rc and linus/master Basically for-testing becomes a place to store the merge resolutions that we can create when the conflict comes up and people still remember what the right resolution is... Jason -- 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