linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the libata tree with the at91 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:05:50 +0200
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...sta.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the libata tree with the at91 tree

Hello.

On 24.10.2011 23:38, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the libata tree got a conflict in
> drivers/ata/pata_at91.c between commit 9585cf300d98 ("ARM: at91/pata: use
> gpio_is_valid to check the gpio") from the at91 tree and commit
> 8e3bfdb95ad7 ("pata_at91: call clk_put() on ata_host_activate() failure")
> from the libata tree.

    I knew about this conflict and have informed Jean-Cristophe on 
LAKML. I don't know why libata driver changes went in via the at91 tree...

> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.

    Thanks.

MBR, Sergei

--
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/