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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:01:45 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with Linus' tree On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c between commit 7aa1e7f06d6e ("Revert > "drm/i915: allow PCH PWM override on IVB"") from Linus' tree and commit > 7cf416014813 ("drm/i915: clear up backlight #define confusion on gen4+") > from the drm tree. > > The former removed the function ivb_pch_pwm_override() that is modified > by the latter, so I did that - or should I have just ignored the revert > patch? Nope, the revert should take precedence because that code is bogus - the change in -next is just replacing a magic value with a proper #define. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@...ll.ch - +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists