Hi Daniel,
Today's linux-next merge of the cisco tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
between commit:
dcf8001d292b ("vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled")
from the vfs tree and commit:
2c070709ea75 ("This updates the x86 code to use the CONFIG_GENERIC_CMDLINE")
from the cisco 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
index e493202bf265,ee109f490b22..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@@ -51,7 -51,7 +51,8 @@@
#include <linux/kvm_para.h>
#include <linux/dma-contiguous.h>
#include <xen/xen.h>
+#include <uapi/linux/mount.h>
+ #include <linux/cmdline.h>
#include <linux/errno.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 16:29:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cisco tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
>
> between commit:
>
> dcf8001d292b ("vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled")
>
> from the vfs tree and commit:
>
> 2c070709ea75 ("This updates the x86 code to use the CONFIG_GENERIC_CMDLINE")
>
> from the cisco 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index e493202bf265,ee109f490b22..000000000000
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@@ -51,7 -51,7 +51,8 @@@
> #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
> #include <linux/dma-contiguous.h>
> #include <xen/xen.h>
> +#include <uapi/linux/mount.h>
> + #include <linux/cmdline.h>
>
> #include <linux/errno.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
This is now a conflict between the cicso tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 09:33:30AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 16:29:23 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the cisco tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > dcf8001d292b ("vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless explicitly enabled")
> >
> > from the vfs tree and commit:
> >
> > 2c070709ea75 ("This updates the x86 code to use the CONFIG_GENERIC_CMDLINE")
> >
> > from the cisco 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.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > diff --cc arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > index e493202bf265,ee109f490b22..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> > @@@ -51,7 -51,7 +51,8 @@@
> > #include <linux/kvm_para.h>
> > #include <linux/dma-contiguous.h>
> > #include <xen/xen.h>
> > +#include <uapi/linux/mount.h>
> > + #include <linux/cmdline.h>
> >
> > #include <linux/errno.h>
> > #include <linux/kernel.h>
>
> This is now a conflict between the cicso tree and Linus' tree.
I did a rebase after your original made this. I'm not sure it's needed any
longer. However, I was planning to rebase my tree again on top of the latest
Linus tree. How would you like to proceed ?
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:54:12 -0800 Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I did a rebase after your original made this. I'm not sure it's needed any
> longer. However, I was planning to rebase my tree again on top of the latest
> Linus tree. How would you like to proceed ?
I still get the conflict when I merge your tree, but it is not such a
bit conflict that it warrants rebasing your tree to get rid of it. It
will be sorted out easily enough when Linus merges your tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell