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:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:24:23 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the arm64 tree
Message-ID: <20190813082422.lecgqtknnn5g4dyj@willie-the-truck>
References: <20190813093447.747a5853@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190813093447.747a5853@canb.auug.org.au>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:34:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   98dc19902a0b ("arm64: topology: Use PPTT to determine if PE is a thread")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
> 
>   60c1b220d8bc ("cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.")
> 
> from the risc-v 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, Stephen.

Paul, Palmer -- If it's not too late, then it would probably be best to
stick this commit (60c1b220d8bc) and any dependencies on their own stable
branch so that we can both pull it into our respective trees and I can
resolve this conflict in the arm64 tree, which I'll send early during the
merge window.

Looking at your tree, I guess I could just pull in
common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology if you promise never to rebase it. Failing
that, you could fork a new branch from 60c1b220d8bc and I could just pull
that part instead.

Please let me know.

Will