Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the pidfd tree

[Joel Fernandes]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 03:02:36PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:53:04AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 12:01:14PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 15 May 2019 13:16:29 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> > > > 
> > > >   include/linux/pid.h
> > > > 
> > > > between commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   51f1b521a515 ("pidfd: add polling support")
> > > > 
> > > > from the pidfd tree and commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   c02e28a1bb18 ("kernel/pid.c: convert struct pid:count to refcount_t")
> > > > 
> > > > from the akpm-current 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 include/linux/pid.h
> > > > index 1484db6ca8d1,0be5829ddd80..000000000000
> > > > --- a/include/linux/pid.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/pid.h
> > > > @@@ -3,7 -3,7 +3,8 @@@
> > > >   #define _LINUX_PID_H
> > > >   
> > > >   #include <linux/rculist.h>
> > > >  +#include <linux/wait.h>
> > > > + #include <linux/refcount.h>
> > > >   
> > > >   enum pid_type
> > > >   {
> > > 
> > > I am still getting this conflict (the commits have changed).  Just a
> > > reminder in case you think Linus may need to know.
> > 
> > Could you let me know if this trivial header inclusion conflict has been
> > resolved now? Let me know what else I can do to help.
> 
> I've informed Linus about this conflict when I sent the PR and he has
> pulled the tag which includes your polling changes. So it shouldn't
> require you to do anything since the conflict is pretty trivial. :)

Thank you Christian!

- Joel