Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pm tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 19:54:46 +1000

Hi Ingo,

On Fri, 16 May 2025 09:54:35 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> So I don't think the <asm/cpuid.h> change is needed - the header still 
> fully exists:
> 
>   starship:~/tip> ls -lh arch/x86/include/asm/cpuid/api.h arch/x86/include/asm/cpuid.h  
>   -rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 6.1K May 16 09:34 arch/x86/include/asm/cpuid/api.h
>   -rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo  149 May 16 09:34 arch/x86/include/asm/cpuid.h

That change is in the tip tree and involved in the conflict, so I just
used it as it was in the tip tree.  This is normal conflict resolution.

> And the <linux/sysfs.h> addition is probably a build fix for the PM 
> tree? The <asm/cpuid.h> header's indirect header dependencies did not 
> change. Should probably not be carried in -next, as this masks a build 
> failure that will then trigger in Linus's tree?

Well, it did not fail building yesterday (without the include) and
looks like the commit is adding the first sysfs use in this file ..

Mind you, if the sysfs.h include had been added a line or 2 higher up -
or even if there was a blank line between the linux/ and asm/ includes,
there may have been no conflict reported and git would have produced
the resulting file with both changes all by itself.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell