* linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable tree
@ 2023-08-17 3:30 Stephen Rothwell
2023-08-24 6:41 ` Thomas Weißschuh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2023-08-17 3:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shuah Khan, Willy Tarreau, Thomas Weißschuh,
Paul E. McKenney, Andrew Morton
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List, Ryan Roberts,
Thomas Weißschuh
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]
Hi all,
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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable tree
2023-08-17 3:30 linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2023-08-24 6:41 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2023-08-24 6:48 ` Willy Tarreau
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Weißschuh @ 2023-08-24 6:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell, Shuah Khan, Willy Tarreau, Paul E. McKenney,
Andrew Morton
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List, Ryan Roberts
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.
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable tree
2023-08-24 6:41 ` Thomas Weißschuh
@ 2023-08-24 6:48 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-08-24 11:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Willy Tarreau @ 2023-08-24 6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Weißschuh
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Shuah Khan, Paul E. McKenney, Andrew Morton,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List, Ryan Roberts
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:41:18AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable tree
2023-08-24 6:48 ` Willy Tarreau
@ 2023-08-24 11:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-08-24 14:23 ` Shuah Khan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2023-08-24 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Willy Tarreau
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh, Stephen Rothwell, Shuah Khan,
Andrew Morton, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List,
Ryan Roberts
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:48:26AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:41:18AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh 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.
Yes, this is the usual approach. The note to Linus normally includes the
URL for Stephen's email. I usually also do the merge myself, publish
a branch to it, and include the name of that branch in my pull request
to Linus. Linus usually prefers to resolve the merge conflicts himself,
but my merge gives him something to compare against.
Thanx, Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable tree
2023-08-24 11:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
@ 2023-08-24 14:23 ` Shuah Khan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Shuah Khan @ 2023-08-24 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck, Willy Tarreau
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh, Stephen Rothwell, Andrew Morton,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List, Ryan Roberts,
Shuah Khan
On 8/24/23 05:45, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:48:26AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:41:18AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh 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.
>
> Yes, this is the usual approach. The note to Linus normally includes the
> URL for Stephen's email. I usually also do the merge myself, publish
> a branch to it, and include the name of that branch in my pull request
> to Linus. Linus usually prefers to resolve the merge conflicts himself,
> but my merge gives him something to compare against.
>
Right. This is how resolve these types of merge conflicts. I will add
note to Linus about this one and the other one with vfs.
thanks,
-- Shuah
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-08-24 14:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-08-17 3:30 linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable tree Stephen Rothwell
2023-08-24 6:41 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2023-08-24 6:48 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-08-24 11:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-08-24 14:23 ` Shuah Khan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox