Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
between commit:
777c0d761be7 ("RISC-V: hwprobe: Always use u64 for extension bits")
from Linus' tree and commit:
53b2b22850e1 ("RISC-V: Move the hwprobe syscall to its own file")
from the risc-v tree.
I fixed it up (I used the latter version of this file and applied the
following merge fix patch) 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.
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:46:10 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] fix up for "RISC-V: Move the hwprobe syscall to its own file"
interacting with commit
777c0d761be7 ("RISC-V: hwprobe: Always use u64 for extension bits")
from Linus' tree.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
index ccf61b040536..41f45acb156b 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
pair->value &= ~missing;
}
-static bool hwprobe_ext0_has(const struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long ext)
+static bool hwprobe_ext0_has(const struct cpumask *cpus, u64 ext)
{
struct riscv_hwprobe pair;
--
2.43.0
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 14:49:57 PST (-0800), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/riscv/kernel/sys_riscv.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 777c0d761be7 ("RISC-V: hwprobe: Always use u64 for extension bits")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 53b2b22850e1 ("RISC-V: Move the hwprobe syscall to its own file")
>
> from the risc-v tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the latter version of this file and applied the
> following merge fix patch) 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.
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 09:46:10 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] fix up for "RISC-V: Move the hwprobe syscall to its own file"
>
> interacting with commit
>
> 777c0d761be7 ("RISC-V: hwprobe: Always use u64 for extension bits")
>
> from Linus' tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> index ccf61b040536..41f45acb156b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/sys_hwprobe.c
> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static void hwprobe_isa_ext0(struct riscv_hwprobe *pair,
> pair->value &= ~missing;
> }
>
> -static bool hwprobe_ext0_has(const struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long ext)
> +static bool hwprobe_ext0_has(const struct cpumask *cpus, u64 ext)
> {
> struct riscv_hwprobe pair;
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
Sorry, I think I screwed this up a few times. I've got something on
linux-next as of this morning that I think should be sane.