On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:24:30PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote: > 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? Cheers, Paul. Sounds good to me. Will