Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drivers-x86 tree with the watchdog tree

From: Darren Hart
Date: Tue May 02 2017 - 14:09:51 EST

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> Today's linux-next merge of the drivers-x86 tree got a conflict in:
> drivers/watchdog/iTCO_wdt.c
> between commit:
> 38a700fa1df9 ("watchdog: iTCO_wdt: cleanup set/unset no_reboot_bit functions")
> (which also appears in the drivers-x86 tree as commit f583a884afec)

Andy and Guenter, I presume the two of you discussed how this patch would get
submitted as I see the following in the platform driver x86 for-next branch:

Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

for both:

140c91b2 watchdog: iTCO_wdt: Add PMC specific noreboot update api
f583a88 watchdog: iTCO_wdt: cleanup set/unset no_reboot_bit functions

This suggests these were deliberately added to our tree and not accidentally
included through a rebase without --preserve-merges or something like that.

Guenter, if you prefer/need to submit this through your tree, can you provide
us with an immutable branch to merge for the dependencies of our later patches?
If you can drop these two patches without a dependency problem in your tree,
that would be the cleanest solution as we could avoid an additional merge.



> from the watchdog tree and commit:
> 140c91b26ebc ("watchdog: iTCO_wdt: Add PMC specific noreboot update api")
> from the drivers-x86 tree.
> I fixed it up 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

Darren Hart
VMware Open Source Technology Center