Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 15:30:28 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
 jc_docs tree
Message-ID: <20180509133027.GA14867@andrea>
References: <20180509202508.15c3435a@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20180509132824.GA14503@andrea>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180509132824.GA14503@andrea>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Really Cc-ing Ingo:

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 03:28:24PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:25:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   Documentation/features/vm/pte_special/arch-support.txt
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   2bef69a385b4 ("Documentation/features/vm: Remove arch support status file for 'pte_special'")
> > 
> > from the jc_docs tree and commit:
> > 
> >   1099dc900e93 ("mm: introduce ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL")
> > 
> > from the akpm-current tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (the former removed the file, so I did that) 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.
> > 
> > BTW, it would be nice if the the question "Why was this file removed?" was
> > answered by that jc_docs commit message ...  I actually wonder if this
> > file needs to return (I have no way of knowing).
> 
> My bad; thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> Mmh... "why" would have been something like "the feature has no Kconfig". ;-)
> 
> I defer to your (community) decision regarding "if this file needs to return"
> (Cc-ing Ingo, who created the file and also suggested its removal); I remain
> available for preparing the patch to restore (and refresh) this file, should
> you agree with this approach.
> 
>   Andrea
> 
> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> 
>