linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the moduleh tree with the arm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:40:54 -0400
From:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
To:	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jon Medhurst <tixy@...t.co.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the moduleh tree with the arm tree

On 11-08-25 12:39 PM, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:33:51PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> On 11-08-25 01:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the moduleh tree got a conflict in
>>> arch/arm/mach-bcmring/mm.c between commit 2d5e975b2194 ("ARM:
>>> mach-bcmring: Setup consistent dma size at boot time") from the arm tree
>>> and commit 9bc7d81e271e ("arm: fix implicit use of page.h in
>>> mach-bcmring/mach-jornada") from the moduleh tree.
>>
>> I can't really relocate the page.h inclusion in a trivial way to
>> make this conflict go away.  But since the implicit header use fixes
>> for arm are independent and don't actually depend on anything in the
>> rest of the module.h tree, I can set about to giving these to Russell
>> for his arm-next branch anytime.  I'll do that shortly.
> 
> For such a trivial conflict, I don't think we need to do anything.  Linus
> has said publically that he likes to sort out conflicts as it allows him
> to have a wider knowledge of what's going on in the kernel tree.
> 
> So, given that the fixup is soo obvious, I don't think we need to play
> games redistributing patches - we just need to be aware of the conflict
> and mention it to Linus when we merge.

OK.  I was entertaining feeding some of the really obvious and simple
parts of the moduleh branch out to the various maintainers just to
reduce its overall size, but in the end I guess that just makes work
for me and them -- vs. a single pull request to Linus for addition to
v3.2-rc1.   I'll just stay the course and Stephen will have to rerere
the merge conflict resolution for a while -- something I'm certain
that he has automated long long ago.

Thanks,
Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/