linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the samsung-krzk tree with the dma-mapping 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:   Tue, 15 May 2018 08:10:14 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        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 samsung-krzk tree with the
 dma-mapping tree

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2018 09:16:34 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the samsung-krzk tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   4965a68780c5 ("arch: define the ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT config symbol in lib/Kconfig")
>>
>> from the dma-mapping tree and commit:
>>
>>   c5deb598089c ("ARM: exynos: Remove support for Exynos5440")
>>
>> from the samsung-krzk tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the latter removed the whole section modified by
>> the former, so I just removed the section) 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.
>
> This is now a conflict between the arm-soc tree and the dma-mapping tree.

Yes, this is expected. Thanks for letting us know. I mentioned this
also in my pull request to arm-soc.

Best regards,
Krzysztof