linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the s390 tree with Linus' 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:   Mon, 4 Sep 2017 14:45:42 +0200
From:   Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the s390 tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 09:49:28 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the s390 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0b89ede62963 ("s390/mm: fork vs. 5 level page tabel")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   f1c1174fa099 ("s390/mm: use new mm defines instead of magic values")
> 
> from the s390 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (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.
 
Fixup looks fine, thank you!

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.