linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the nand tree with the jc

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 May 2017 11:37:23 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the nand tree with the jc_docs tree

Hi Boris,

Today's linux-next merge of the nand tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c

between commit:

  b6f6c29454d2 ("mtd: adjust kernel-docs to avoid Sphinx/kerneldoc warnings")

from the jc_docs tree and commit:

  c79d63fd272c ("mtd: nand: Remove support for block locking/unlocking")

from the nand tree.

I fixed it up (the latter just removed the code modified by the former,
so I did that) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell