Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the csky tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:23:54 +1100

Hi aa,

On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 17:38:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/csky/include/asm/Kbuild
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   fed76f8679a6 ("csky: Add QUEUED_SPINLOCKS supported")
> 
> from the csky tree and commit:
> 
>   6e9ae6f98809 ("csky: Enable seccomp architecture tracking")
> 
> from the seccomp tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) 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
> 
> diff --cc arch/csky/include/asm/Kbuild
> index f814d46d347f,93372255984d..000000000000
> --- a/arch/csky/include/asm/Kbuild
> +++ b/arch/csky/include/asm/Kbuild
> @@@ -3,9 -3,6 +3,8 @@@ generic-y += asm-offsets.
>   generic-y += gpio.h
>   generic-y += kvm_para.h
>   generic-y += local64.h
>  +generic-y += mcs_spinlock.h
>   generic-y += qrwlock.h
>  +generic-y += qspinlock.h
> - generic-y += seccomp.h
>   generic-y += user.h
>   generic-y += vmlinux.lds.h

This is now a conflict between the csky tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell