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:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 15:05:54 +0000
From:   Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the hyperv tree with the tip tree
Message-ID: <20210316150554.32xtihkhvdkup3eq@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
References: <20210315143505.35af617b@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20210316150254.GC18822@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20210316150254.GC18822@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:02:54PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 02:35:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the hyperv tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   a0e2bf7cb700 ("x86/paravirt: Switch time pvops functions to use static_call()")
> > 
> > from the tip tree and commit:
> > 
> >   eb3e1d370b4c ("clocksource/drivers/hyper-v: Handle sched_clock differences inline")
> > 
> > from the hyperv tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I used the latter version of this file and then applied the
> > following patch) 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.
> 
> Right,
> 
> so tglx and I took a quick look and came to the conclusion that it would
> be best if you - provided it is not too much trouble - keep applying
> this patch so that linux-next can get tested properly and we - Wei or I
> - explain this merge conflict in our pull requests during the next merge
> window and ask Linus to merge your patch ontop. This way we'll save us
> the cross-tree merging dance.

Totally agreed. :-)

I've made a note to inform Linus about this in the next merge window.

Thanks,
Wei.

> 
> Thx!
> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imend?rffer, HRB 36809, AG N?rnberg