linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:53:26 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with Linus' tree

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:23:17 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > No. Keep it and lets next time coordinate the relevant bits and pieces
> > better. I reserve that bit 20 and let Linus sort out the trivial conflict
> > when merging the stuff.
> 
> I just picked that bit 20 when resolving the conflict.  The original patch used
> bit 11, so the resolution could use any other sensible bit.

20 is fine :)