linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the arc-current tree

Posted by Stephen Rothwell 2 years, 3 months ago

Hi all,

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

  arch/arc/Kconfig

between commit:

  f798f91e7f5f ("ARC: uaccess: use optimized generic __strnlen_user/__strncpy_from_user")

from the arc-current tree and commit:

  06dfae39d200 ("arc: mm: convert to GENERIC_IOREMAP")

from the mm-stable tree.

BTW, if the "select GENERIC_IOREMAP" had been put in its (alphabetical)
proper place, this conflict would not have occurred ...

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/arc/Kconfig
index c92bacc1ff4c,6f4995ad9873..000000000000
--- a/arch/arc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arc/Kconfig
@@@ -21,6 -21,6 +21,7 @@@ config AR
  	select DMA_DIRECT_REMAP
  	select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 if !ISA_ARCV2 || !(ARC_HAS_LL64 && ARC_HAS_LLSC)
  	# for now, we don't need GENERIC_IRQ_PROBE, CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_CHIP
++	select GENERIC_IOREMAP
  	select GENERIC_IRQ_SHOW
  	select GENERIC_PCI_IOMAP
  	select GENERIC_PENDING_IRQ if SMP

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the arc-current tree

Posted by Vineet Gupta 2 years, 3 months ago


On 8/21/23 15:28, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the mm-stable tree got a conflict in:
>
>    arch/arc/Kconfig
>
> between commit:
>
>    f798f91e7f5f ("ARC: uaccess: use optimized generic __strnlen_user/__strncpy_from_user")
>
> from the arc-current tree and commit:
>
>    06dfae39d200 ("arc: mm: convert to GENERIC_IOREMAP")
>
> from the mm-stable tree.
>
> BTW, if the "select GENERIC_IOREMAP" had been put in its (alphabetical)
> proper place, this conflict would not have occurred ...
>
> 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.
>

Thx a bunch Stephen.

-Vineet