2022-11-10 00:05:50

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:

drivers/net/can/pch_can.c

between commit:

ae64438be192 ("can: dev: fix skb drop check")

from the net tree and commit:

1dd1b521be85 ("can: remove obsolete PCH CAN driver")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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


Attachments:
(No filename) (499.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature

2022-11-10 07:39:03

by Oliver Hartkopp

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hello Stephen,

On 10.11.22 00:25, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/net/can/pch_can.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ae64438be192 ("can: dev: fix skb drop check")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
> 1dd1b521be85 ("can: remove obsolete PCH CAN driver")
>
> from the net-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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.
>

Yes, this is known.

The removal of the PCH CAN driver missed the last net-next phase for
Linux 6.1 by some hours and therefore showed up relatively early in the
net-next for 6.2.

Maybe we should generally try to commit "complete removals" of drivers
preferably at the end of a -next phase which would have omitted this
conflict.

Thanks for your work!

Best regards,
Oliver