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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190403145609.6eda97b6@canb.auug.org.au> <b5e42db8-a873-5667-f179-78cadf5b2bf5@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <b5e42db8-a873-5667-f179-78cadf5b2bf5@linaro.org>
From:   Bo YU <tsu.yubo@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:39:02 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKq8=3JWvzCo04cmVKAQ-Wpa0nS8ShOw2e7HP_fpBz6HZg+Drw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the
 char-misc.current tree
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:07 PM Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/04/2019 04:56, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >    drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >    01b76c32e3f3 ("misc: fastrpc: add checked value for dma_set_mask")
> >
> > from the char-misc.current tree and commit:
> >
> >    977e6c8d1d18 ("misc: fastrpc: use correct spinlock variant")
> >
> > from the char-misc 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
> Greg did request Bo YU to rebase this patch on top of char-misc tree.
 Yes.The patch was v2 after rebasing char-misc tree.
>
> That would be a real fix for this conflict, until then this fixup should
> work.
Is there any modifies need me?
Anyway thank everyone!
>
> --srini
> > 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.
> >