linux-next: manual merge of the landlock tree with the tip tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 2 years, 7 months ago

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the landlock tree got a conflict in:

  arch/um/Kconfig

between commit:

  9349b5cd0908 ("um/cpu: Switch to arch_cpu_finalize_init()")

from the tip tree and commit:

  74ce793bcbde ("hostfs: Fix ephemeral inodes")

from the landlock 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/um/Kconfig
index 887cfb636c26,4057d5267c6a..000000000000
--- a/arch/um/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/um/Kconfig
@@@ -5,8 -5,6 +5,7 @@@ menu "UML-specific options
  config UML
  	bool
  	default y
- 	select ARCH_EPHEMERAL_INODES
 +	select ARCH_HAS_CPU_FINALIZE_INIT
  	select ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE
  	select ARCH_HAS_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL
  	select ARCH_HAS_KCOV

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

Posted by Mickaël Salaün 2 years, 7 months ago

Hi Thomas,

There is a (trivial) merge conflict because one of your commits adds 
ARCH_HAS_CPU_FINALIZE_INIT and one of mine removes ARCH_EPHEMERAL_INODES 
in arch/um/Kconfig.

I don't plan to add more commits to my tree until the merge window and 
I'd like to send a PR to Linus as soon as it is open. Would that be OK 
with you to let Linus deal with this trivial conflict or do you prefer 
one of us to rebase on the other's tree?

Regards,
  Mickaël

On 20/06/2023 05:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the landlock tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    arch/um/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    9349b5cd0908 ("um/cpu: Switch to arch_cpu_finalize_init()")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>    74ce793bcbde ("hostfs: Fix ephemeral inodes")
> 
> from the landlock 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.
>