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;
Message-ID: <54c92bbe-33fa-35ba-dd7f-14a28dcf758a@hartkopp.net>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:28:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.0
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
References: <20221110102509.1f7d63cc@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
In-Reply-To: <20221110102509.1f7d63cc@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hello Stephen,

On 10.11.22 00:25, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/net/can/pch_can.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    ae64438be192 ("can: dev: fix skb drop check")
> 
> from the net tree and commit:
> 
>    1dd1b521be85 ("can: remove obsolete PCH CAN driver")
> 
> from the net-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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.
> 

Yes, this is known.

The removal of the PCH CAN driver missed the last net-next phase for 
Linux 6.1 by some hours and therefore showed up relatively early in the 
net-next for 6.2.

Maybe we should generally try to commit "complete removals" of drivers 
preferably at the end of a -next phase which would have omitted this 
conflict.

Thanks for your work!

Best regards,
Oliver