On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:02:54PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 02:35:05PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the hyperv tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > a0e2bf7cb700 ("x86/paravirt: Switch time pvops functions to use
> > static_call()")
> >
> > from the tip tree and commit:
> >
> > eb3e1d370b4c ("clocksource/drivers/hyper-v: Handle sched_clock
> > differences inline")
> >
> > from the hyperv tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the latter version of this file and then applied the
> > following patch) 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.
>
> Right,
>
> so tglx and I took a quick look and came to the conclusion that it would
> be best if you - provided it is not too much trouble - keep applying
> this patch so that linux-next can get tested properly and we - Wei or I
> - explain this merge conflict in our pull requests during the next merge
> window and ask Linus to merge your patch ontop. This way we'll save us
> the cross-tree merging dance.
Totally agreed. :-)
I've made a note to inform Linus about this in the next merge window.
Thanks,
Wei.
>
> Thx!
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG
> Nürnberg
