linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL 0/13 (12)] arm-soc updates

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:18:05 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 0/13 (12)] arm-soc updates

On Wednesday 02 November 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >
> > I have a series of 12 pull requests for the arm-soc tree, a total of 409
> > non-merge commits. Feel free to pull either the for-linus branch that contains
> > the lot with all conflicts resolved or the individual pull requests.
> 
> Ok, I did the individual merges, because I really want to know what
> horrible things go on there. Ugh.
>
> But I did compare it against your pre-merged thing, and there are some
> differences. I think my version of the arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
> thing is better, for example (you seem to have the OMAP4_PANDA and
> OMAP3517EVM boards duplicated). And the arch/arm/plat-omap/devices.c
> difference is just a matter of taste.

Right, your version looks better in both cases.

> But the arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-generic.c difference is real. You
> left a lot more header file includes in place, while my merge looked
> at the previous commits and merges that removed a lot of them - and
> followed suit. Maybe there was some reason you didn't?

I've done this merge a few times. I think at one point I got it right,
but the version I had in my combined branch used an earlier merge
that got back through rerere. I'll try to watch out for these in the
future.

> Also, your tree removed the atag_offset lines that weren't even content
> conflicts, and again, there may have been some reason for that?

This one was intentional, but it's not very important either. The
conflict was between 5e52b435b "ARM: mach-omap2: convert boot_params
to atag_offset" and 8d61649 "ARM: OMAP2+: board-generic: Add DT support
to generic board" and . The first one changed the method how to
find the traditional "atag" data structure, the second patch moved
the file over from having one atag (and board number) based entry
to having three distinct device tree based machine descriptions, which
obsoletes the atag_offset/boot_params.

I had originally merged them incorrectly and it seems that this mismerge
ended up in your tree now. It's harmless because the atag_offset is
ignored here, but I'll send a cleanup after checking all other files
that may have the same problem.

	Arnd
--
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/