On Fri, Nov 27 2020 at 13:54, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> 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, from my perspective looks good, dunno if scheduler part is okay.
The final outcome in -next looks correct.
Thanks,
tglx
