Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753680AbdIDMpv (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2017 08:45:51 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:46654 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753659AbdIDMpt (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Sep 2017 08:45:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 14:45:42 +0200 From: Martin Schwidefsky To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Heiko Carstens , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the s390 tree with Linus' tree In-Reply-To: <20170904094928.59e8594c@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20170904094928.59e8594c@canb.auug.org.au> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17090412-0016-0000-0000-000004E88277 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17090412-0017-0000-0000-000028220DB5 Message-Id: <20170904144542.3d41a0fe@mschwideX1> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-09-04_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1709040204 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 909 Lines: 33 On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 09:49:28 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the s390 tree got a conflict in: > > arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h > > between commit: > > 0b89ede62963 ("s390/mm: fork vs. 5 level page tabel") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > f1c1174fa099 ("s390/mm: use new mm defines instead of magic values") > > from the s390 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. Fixup looks fine, thank you! -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.