Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2018 15:30:28 +0200 | From | Andrea Parri <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc_docs tree |
| |
Really Cc-ing Ingo:
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 03:28:24PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote: > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:25:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > > > Documentation/features/vm/pte_special/arch-support.txt > > > > between commit: > > > > 2bef69a385b4 ("Documentation/features/vm: Remove arch support status file for 'pte_special'") > > > > from the jc_docs tree and commit: > > > > 1099dc900e93 ("mm: introduce ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL") > > > > from the akpm-current tree. > > > > I fixed it up (the former removed the file, so I did that) 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. > > > > BTW, it would be nice if the the question "Why was this file removed?" was > > answered by that jc_docs commit message ... I actually wonder if this > > file needs to return (I have no way of knowing). > > My bad; thanks for pointing this out. > > Mmh... "why" would have been something like "the feature has no Kconfig". ;-) > > I defer to your (community) decision regarding "if this file needs to return" > (Cc-ing Ingo, who created the file and also suggested its removal); I remain > available for preparing the patch to restore (and refresh) this file, should > you agree with this approach. > > Andrea > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Stephen Rothwell > >
| |