From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751760AbeAPWaZ (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:30:25 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:44273 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751004AbeAPWaV (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:30:21 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 09:30:18 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Will Deacon , Dave Martin Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20180117093018.2004ae03@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 Return-Path: Hi Catalin, Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in: arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c between commit: a45448313706 ("arm64: fpsimd: Fix copying of FP state from signal frame into task struct") from Linus' tree and commit: 0abdeff598a6 ("arm64: fpsimd: Fix state leakage when migrating after sigreturn") from the arm64 tree. I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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