On Fri, 12 Jun 2026 13:41:00 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote:

quoted

I was aware of the conflict but didn't realize a note would be helpful
for the merge. I should have included one.

Could you point me to an example commit/patch that contains such a note so I
can understand the expected format and procedure?  

In this particular example, I think it would have been easier to have
waited for the fix to land in net-next -- after the weekly sync with net
-- and then send the net-next patches.

When this cannot be avoided, then you can mention the conflict, and
ideally share a diff of the resolution, plus a description, especially
when it is not obvious, when simply saying "take the version from X" is
helpful, when extra modifications are needed, etc. e.g. [1]. Something
similar to what Mark is usually doing on the linux-next ML, or what I
did here.

Thanks for explaining! This conflict was avoidable but I didn't find
the appropriately polite explanation within me :)

When conflicting code is _already committed_ to net-next we can deal
with the conflict. If there's a patch only posted but not commited and
we notice a bug - the net-next patch should be explicitly withdrawn and
reposted once the fix has propagated.