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;
Date:   Fri, 7 Jul 2023 12:52:06 +0800
From:   Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, agordeev@linux.ibm.com
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.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 mm tree with Linus' tree
Message-ID: <ZKeZ9i3bSPOWJ3ZM@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
References: <20230707085437.28b9c898@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230707085437.28b9c898@canb.auug.org.au>
Precedence: bulk

On 07/07/23 at 08:54am, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   51f513fd9659 ("s390/mm: do not include <asm-generic/io.h> directly")
>   b378a9826143 ("s390: include linux/io.h instead of asm/io.h")

Thanks, Stephen.

Hi Alexander,

Since commit b378a9826143 acted to fix all places of <asm-generic/io.h>
direct including, my patch of commit 51f513fd9659 better be dropped?

> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   c594d5c4b630 ("s390: mm: convert to GENERIC_IOREMAP")

I forgot dropping the hunk in arch/s390/kernel/perf_cpum_sf.c and that
cause the conflict. Sorry about the inconvenience.

Thanks
Baoquan

> 
> from the mm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell