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:   Thu, 24 Aug 2023 08:48:26 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <thomas@t-8ch.de>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable
 tree
Message-ID: <ZOb9OuFh/2pmkRv+@1wt.eu>
References: <20230817133053.76d9f850@canb.auug.org.au>
 <28aeee7b-2de5-4f39-8eb5-3e3486eeed1b@t-8ch.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <28aeee7b-2de5-4f39-8eb5-3e3486eeed1b@t-8ch.de>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:41:18AM +0200, Thomas Wei?schuh wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> On 2023-08-17 13:30:53+1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nolibc tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   08d959738a95 ("selftests: line buffer test program's stdout")
> > 
> > from the mm-stable tree and commits:
> > 
> >   65ff4d19f792 ("tools/nolibc/stdio: add setvbuf() to set buffering mode")
> >   2e00a8fc4f47 ("tools/nolibc: setvbuf: avoid unused parameter warnings")
> > 
> > from the nolibc tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just used the latter version of this 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.
> 
> how do we want to handle this one?
> 
> A small note to Linus in the PRs to him on how to resolve it seem
> reasonable to me.
> But I'm fairly new to the process.

My understanding is that Stephen's fix is still in his tree. We may indeed
need to add a note to Linus in the PR about this one and the other one.

Cheers,
Willy