Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 14:44:53 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@intel.com>,
        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 usb tree with the
 drm-intel-fixes tree
Message-ID: <Y9kNRVppj5Uxa9ub@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20230131130305.019029ff@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230131130305.019029ff@canb.auug.org.au>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:03:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the usb tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   5bc4b43d5c6c ("drm/i915: Fix up locking around dumping requests lists")
> 
> from the drm-intel-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   4d70c74659d9 ("i915: Move list_count() to list.h as list_count_nodes() for broader use")
> 
> from the usb tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code changed by the latter)

Hmm... Currently I see that 20230127002842.3169194-4-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com
moves the code to the drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c.

Is there any new series beside the above mentioned that touches that file and
actually _removes_ that code?

>	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.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko