Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220802233844.2613013-1-broonie@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220802233844.2613013-1-broonie@kernel.org>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 11:28:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CANiq72nbMchMo5a1sQtBRF_rdBX8pdmHhVjft=-o_9-ZEpT2TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rust tree with the kbuild tree
To:     broonie@kernel.org
Cc:     Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@gmail.com>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Antonio Terceiro <antonio.terceiro@linaro.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Roy_Baron?= <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Boris-Chengbiao Zhou <bobo1239@web.de>,
        Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>,
        Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski@dsosnowski.pl>,
        David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Douglas Su <d0u9.su@outlook.com>, Finn Behrens <me@kloenk.de>,
        Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@gmail.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Miguel Cano <macanroj@gmail.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@gmail.com>,
        Tiago Lam <tiagolam@gmail.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 1:38 AM <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Looks good to me! Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel