Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:47:46 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
To:     Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the openrisc tree with Linus' tree
Message-ID: <20210125124746.40e2638d@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20210125010446.GS2002709@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
References: <20210125090506.35337fa2@canb.auug.org.au>
        <20210125010446.GS2002709@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/N9ObBHMlHl_T7XVWQHiGCRs";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Precedence: bulk

--Sig_/N9ObBHMlHl_T7XVWQHiGCRs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Stafford,

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:04:46 +0900 Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank's I knew about this conflict but I was not sure the best way to han=
dle, I
> was/am going to rebase the openrisc/for-next branch onto 5.11-rc5 once re=
leased.
> I will resolve the conflict during the rebase so you should be able to dr=
op the
> conflict patch after that.

Its a pretty trivial conflict, so I wouldn't do the rebase just for this.

> The issue is I had a fix that went straight to 5.11.  Should I usually pu=
t these
> kind of fixes on my for-next and my fixes branches in parallel, that way =
I can
> resolve conflicts on for-next before hand?

I notice that the version in Linus' tree was merged from a separate
branch.  The easiest that to do is for you to merge that same branch
into your for-next branch - that way you only get your own changes, not
any other stuff that might be in Linus' tree.

> I don't usually do that as in my mind for next is for 5.12 and fixes for =
5.11 go
> straight to 5.11.  Also, I don't like putting the same patch in 2 queues.=
  But
> if I got any advice on how to avoid this in the future it would be apprec=
iated.

Like I said, just merge your fixes branch into you for-next branch
when/if you think the fixes are important for further development, or
the conflicts become to great.

I can also add you fixes branch to linux-next if you like (I already
have 86 other "fixes" branches).

--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

--Sig_/N9ObBHMlHl_T7XVWQHiGCRs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmAOI0IACgkQAVBC80lX
0GzCCQf/YAKPxZ+ay2vixNCpBYtW/DiUJpY60hz+ovo+1ndm0mg/QX1NXL9Ej8ld
+TqLacmnH6WEBaDj1SxJv90+bZWCyVLw1FjN1bRyJ9kfTAhapNReXXEpoG9mbO94
bhkE9mTDk/w75Lso1MTCNrHMhooPHojMMJZvEwJfp2CntDFRpke68zQ25itW8xUy
9Tixk18OhrNhd5GA8kyKaGilYzY9YAJHq1mexDgCzvbUF1YCVZcRYNs1SgTd0p3E
ZlcF0bV4+YP2WY+2Pfa6PFfb7oau8sV+kGszgz7UJeydx19msalbneYB1aEDbZF9
HKXCGYoJozEvkFL+2QMVqw9FptGxTA==
=YQbB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/N9ObBHMlHl_T7XVWQHiGCRs--