linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the samsung-krzk tree with the arm-soc 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, 16 Sep 2016 10:50:52 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the samsung-krzk tree with the arm-soc
 tree

On 09/05/2016 03:19 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the samsung-krzk tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   585dcacac6bb ("arm64: dts: Fix broken architected timer interrupt trigger")
> 
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> 
>   36d1c9cd07cd ("arm64: dts: exynos: Use human-friendly symbols for timer interrupt flags")
> 
> from the samsung-krzk tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I *think* - see below) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.

The fix is correct, for the record:
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>

Merge conflict was (unfortunately) expected. In general, the
multiple-platform-at-once patches are conflict prone. Especially in this
case, Marc's patch ("arm64: dts: Fix broken architected...") could be
split per architecture.

Best regards,
Krzysztof