Message ID | 20190902094711.2625ba31@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Not Applicable |
Headers | show |
Series | linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm64 tree | expand |
Context | Check | Description |
---|---|---|
snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch | warning | Failed to apply on branch next (751990688aa0920321be18b1130e4081ae6d2153) |
snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch | fail | Failed to apply to any branch |
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > arch/Kconfig > > between commit: > > 5cf896fb6be3 ("arm64: Add support for relocating the kernel with RELR relocations") > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > 0c9c1d563975 ("x86, s390: Move ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT definition to arch/Kconfig") > > from the powerpc 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. Thanks. That conflict seems entirely trivial, but Catalin/Will if it bothers you I have the conflicting commit in a topic branch based on rc2 which you could merge to resolve it: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux.git/commit/?h=topic/mem-encrypt&id=0c9c1d56397518eb823d458b00b06bcccd956794 cheers > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell > > diff --cc arch/Kconfig > index 6f4d3e9bf486,89e2e3f64f79..000000000000 > --- a/arch/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/Kconfig > @@@ -932,20 -925,9 +932,23 @@@ config LOCK_EVENT_COUNT > the chance of application behavior change because of timing > differences. The counts are reported via debugfs. > > +# Select if the architecture has support for applying RELR relocations. > +config ARCH_HAS_RELR > + bool > + > +config RELR > + bool "Use RELR relocation packing" > + depends on ARCH_HAS_RELR && TOOLS_SUPPORT_RELR > + default y > + help > + Store the kernel's dynamic relocations in the RELR relocation packing > + format. Requires a compatible linker (LLD supports this feature), as > + well as compatible NM and OBJCOPY utilities (llvm-nm and llvm-objcopy > + are compatible). > + > + config ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT > + bool > + > source "kernel/gcov/Kconfig" > > source "scripts/gcc-plugins/Kconfig"
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:44:43AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > > > arch/Kconfig > > > > between commit: > > > > 5cf896fb6be3 ("arm64: Add support for relocating the kernel with RELR relocations") > > > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > > > 0c9c1d563975 ("x86, s390: Move ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT definition to arch/Kconfig") > > > > from the powerpc 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. > > Thanks. > > That conflict seems entirely trivial, but Catalin/Will if it bothers you > I have the conflicting commit in a topic branch based on rc2 which you > could merge to resolve it: It's a trivial conflict, easy to resolve. I don't think it's worth trying to avoid it (Linus normally doesn't mind such conflicts).
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 10:08:46AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:44:43AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > arch/Kconfig > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > 5cf896fb6be3 ("arm64: Add support for relocating the kernel with RELR relocations") > > > > > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > > > > > 0c9c1d563975 ("x86, s390: Move ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT definition to arch/Kconfig") > > > > > > from the powerpc 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. > > > > Thanks. > > > > That conflict seems entirely trivial, but Catalin/Will if it bothers you > > I have the conflicting commit in a topic branch based on rc2 which you > > could merge to resolve it: > > It's a trivial conflict, easy to resolve. I don't think it's worth > trying to avoid it (Linus normally doesn't mind such conflicts). Agreed, we can live with this one :) Will
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:44:43AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in: >> > >> > arch/Kconfig >> > >> > between commit: >> > >> > 5cf896fb6be3 ("arm64: Add support for relocating the kernel with RELR relocations") >> > >> > from the arm64 tree and commit: >> > >> > 0c9c1d563975 ("x86, s390: Move ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT definition to arch/Kconfig") >> > >> > from the powerpc 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. >> >> Thanks. >> >> That conflict seems entirely trivial, but Catalin/Will if it bothers you >> I have the conflicting commit in a topic branch based on rc2 which you >> could merge to resolve it: > > It's a trivial conflict, easy to resolve. I don't think it's worth > trying to avoid it (Linus normally doesn't mind such conflicts). Yep, I agree. cheers
diff --cc arch/Kconfig index 6f4d3e9bf486,89e2e3f64f79..000000000000 --- a/arch/Kconfig