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
