linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the dmi 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2017 14:38:22 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the dmi tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:40:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/acpi/sbs.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   f996c4155d0d ("dmi: Mark all struct dmi_system_id instances const")
> 
> from the dmi tree and commit:
> 
>   630b3aff8a51 ("treewide: Consolidate Apple DMI checks")
> 
> from the pm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the latter removed the declaration updated by the former)
> 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.

Just a reminder that the above conflict still exists.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell