Hi all,

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

  arch/x86/Kconfig.assembler

between commits:

  984f835009d6 ("crypto: x86 - Remove CONFIG_AS_SHA1_NI")
  d032a27e8fe9 ("crypto: x86 - Remove CONFIG_AS_SHA256_NI")

from the crypto tree and commit:

  a72d55dc3bd6 ("x86/idle: Remove CONFIG_AS_TPAUSE")

from the tip 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/x86/Kconfig.assembler
index 4d06fd3c8dfe,fa8858546d5e..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig.assembler
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig.assembler
@@@ -6,11 -6,16 +6,6 @@@ config AS_AVX51
  	help
  	  Supported by binutils >= 2.25 and LLVM integrated assembler
  
- config AS_TPAUSE
- 	def_bool $(as-instr,tpause %ecx)
 -config AS_SHA1_NI
 -	def_bool $(as-instr,sha1msg1 %xmm0$(comma)%xmm1)
--	help
- 	  Supported by binutils >= 2.31.1 and LLVM integrated assembler >= V7
 -	  Supported by binutils >= 2.24 and LLVM integrated assembler
 -
 -config AS_SHA256_NI
 -	def_bool $(as-instr,sha256msg1 %xmm0$(comma)%xmm1)
 -	help
 -	  Supported by binutils >= 2.24 and LLVM integrated assembler
--
  config AS_GFNI
  	def_bool $(as-instr,vgf2p8mulb %xmm0$(comma)%xmm1$(comma)%xmm2)
  	help

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/Kconfig.assembler
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   984f835009d6 ("crypto: x86 - Remove CONFIG_AS_SHA1_NI")
>   d032a27e8fe9 ("crypto: x86 - Remove CONFIG_AS_SHA256_NI")
> 
> from the crypto tree and commit:
> 
>   a72d55dc3bd6 ("x86/idle: Remove CONFIG_AS_TPAUSE")
> 
> from the tip 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.

The resolution looks good to me, thank you!

	Ingo