On Tue, 04 Aug 2020 17:39:43 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all, On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in: arch/riscv/Kconfig between commit: 95ce6c73da3b ("riscv: Enable context tracking") 929f6a183839 ("riscv: Add kmemleak support") from the risc-v tree and commit: 140c8180eb7c ("arch: remove HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS") from the pidfd 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. diff --cc arch/riscv/Kconfig index 76a0cfad3367,f6a3a2bea3d8..000000000000 --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig @@@ -57,9 -52,6 +57,8 @@@ config RISC select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS + select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING - select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS + select HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS if MMU select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if MMU select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG if FUTEXThis is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.
Thanks. I'd just pulled in some stuff and was intending on sending a PR to Linus tomorrow (we've got some autobuilders that run overnight that I like to give a crack at the actual commit before I send anything). For this one I think the best bet is to just mention it to Linus as a conflict to be fixed -- the only other thing I can think of would be to rebase my tree, which seems worse at this point. LMK if anyone has a better idea, otherwise I'll send it out.
