Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the risc-v tree
From: Palmer Dabbelt
Date: Tue Aug 04 2020 - 21:17:43 EST
On Tue, 04 Aug 2020 17:39:43 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
arch/riscv/Kconfig
between commit:
95ce6c73da3b ("riscv: Enable context tracking")
929f6a183839 ("riscv: Add kmemleak support")
from the risc-v tree and commit:
140c8180eb7c ("arch: remove HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS")
from the pidfd 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.
diff --cc arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 76a0cfad3367,f6a3a2bea3d8..000000000000
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@@ -57,9 -52,6 +57,8 @@@ config RISC
select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS
+ select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
- select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
+ select HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS if MMU
select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if MMU
select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG if FUTEX
This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.
Thanks. I'd just pulled in some stuff and was intending on sending a PR to
Linus tomorrow (we've got some autobuilders that run overnight that I like to
give a crack at the actual commit before I send anything). For this one I
think the best bet is to just mention it to Linus as a conflict to be fixed --
the only other thing I can think of would be to rebase my tree, which seems
worse at this point.
LMK if anyone has a better idea, otherwise I'll send it out.