Message-ID: <c988b032-d076-bda6-ee38-3c83e9cad711@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:02:27 -0500
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 kvms390 tree with the s390 tree
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20230123121245.526d262b@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230123121245.526d262b@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 1/22/23 8:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>
>    drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>
> between commit:
>
>    0daf9878a799 ("s390/vfio_ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
>    bedac519eefa ("s390/vfio-ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>
> from the kvms390 tree.
>
> They seem to do the same thing, so I used the version of this file from
> the s390 tree as it's commit is much newer and has other changes to this
> file i.e. I effectively dropped the kvms390 tree commit.


That's odd, the patch series posted to the kernel mailing lists did not 
have both of those patches. I think the problem may have occurred 
because there was an earlier version of the patch in question that was 
used to debug a problem in our CI. That patch should have been reverted 
prior to installing the latest version.


>
> I fixed it up (see above) 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.
>