Hi folks,
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:34:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 98dc19902a0b ("arm64: topology: Use PPTT to determine if PE is a thread")
> >
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> >
> > 60c1b220d8bc ("cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.")
> >
> > from the risc-v tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (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.
>
> Thanks, Stephen.
>
> Paul, Palmer -- If it's not too late, then it would probably be best to
> stick this commit (60c1b220d8bc) and any dependencies on their own stable
> branch so that we can both pull it into our respective trees and I can
> resolve this conflict in the arm64 tree, which I'll send early during the
> merge window.
>
> Looking at your tree, I guess I could just pull in
> common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology if you promise never to rebase it. Failing
> that, you could fork a new branch from 60c1b220d8bc and I could just pull
> that part instead.
How about if we treat common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology as a stable branch?
I wasn't planning to rebase it. Then both of us can just merge it into
our for-next branches for the merge window? (It looks like I will need to
rebuild the riscv for-next branch on top of v5.3-rc5, for unrelated
reasons.)
Sound reasonable?
- Paul
