Hi Dan,
Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
arch/powerpc/sysdev/axonram.c
between commit:
1d65b1c886be ("powerpc/cell: Remove axonram driver")
from the powerpc tree and commit:
785a3fab4adb ("mm, dax: introduce pfn_t_special()")
from the nvdimm 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
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/sysdev/axonram.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 1d65b1c886be ("powerpc/cell: Remove axonram driver")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 785a3fab4adb ("mm, dax: introduce pfn_t_special()")
>
> from the nvdimm 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.
Thanks Stephen, resolution looks good to me.
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>
> between commit:
>
> bbbca72352bb ("powerpc/papr_scm: Implement initial support for injecting smart errors")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 4c08d4bbc089 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Add perf interface support")
>
> from the nvdimm 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.
Thanks for this correction Stephen and the change looks ok to me. I
verified the functionality introduced by kernel commit bbbca72352bb
("powerpc/papr_scm: Implement initial support for injecting smart
errors") on the 'next-20220315' and found it to be working fine.
<snip>
--
Cheers
~ Vaibhav
On 3/15/22 13:45, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>
> between commit:
>
> bbbca72352bb ("powerpc/papr_scm: Implement initial support for injecting smart errors")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 4c08d4bbc089 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Add perf interface support")
>
> from the nvdimm 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.
>
Hi Stephan,
The change for resolving merged trees issue looks good to me. I
also tested the latest linux-next tree - master branch with
next-20220315 changes and the papr_scm perf interface is working as
expected. Thanks for correcting it.
Thanks,
Kajol Jain
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>
> between commit:
>
> bbbca72352bb ("powerpc/papr_scm: Implement initial support for injecting smart errors")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> 4c08d4bbc089 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Add perf interface support")
>
> from the nvdimm 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.
Thanks, resolution looks obviously correct.
Dan, this seems benign to me, I don't think any further action is
required other than mentioning it to Linus. But if you disagree let me
know.
cheers
> diff --cc arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> index 1238b94b3cc1,4dd513d7c029..000000000000
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> @@@ -121,9 -124,8 +124,11 @@@ struct papr_scm_priv
> /* length of the stat buffer as expected by phyp */
> size_t stat_buffer_len;
>
> + /* The bits which needs to be overridden */
> + u64 health_bitmap_inject_mask;
> +
> + /* array to have event_code and stat_id mappings */
> + char **nvdimm_events_map;
> };
>
> static int papr_scm_pmem_flush(struct nd_region *nd_region,
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:21 AM Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > bbbca72352bb ("powerpc/papr_scm: Implement initial support for injecting smart errors")
> >
> > from the powerpc tree and commit:
> >
> > 4c08d4bbc089 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Add perf interface support")
> >
> > from the nvdimm 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.
>
> Thanks, resolution looks obviously correct.
>
> Dan, this seems benign to me, I don't think any further action is
> required other than mentioning it to Linus.
Yes, it looks ok to me.