From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932962AbdDFX0l (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 19:26:41 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:55269 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755303AbdDFX0d (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 19:26:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:26:30 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Al Viro , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the s390 tree Message-ID: <20170407092630.7e020327@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: arch/s390/Kconfig between commit: 59cea29a34eb ("s390: remove HAVE_ARCH_EARLY_PFN_TO_NID select statement") from the s390 tree and commit: 37df4b8ce129 ("HAVE_ARCH_HARDENED_USERCOPY is unconditional now") from the vfs 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 arch/s390/Kconfig index 249c2771be0e,b8b143432381..000000000000 --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig @@@ -124,7 -123,7 +124,6 @@@ config S39 select GENERIC_TIME_VSYSCALL select HAVE_ALIGNED_STRUCT_PAGE if SLUB select HAVE_ARCH_AUDITSYSCALL - select HAVE_ARCH_HARDENED_USERCOPY - select HAVE_ARCH_EARLY_PFN_TO_NID select HAVE_ARCH_JUMP_LABEL select CPU_NO_EFFICIENT_FFS if !HAVE_MARCH_Z9_109_FEATURES select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER