linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the phy-next 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, 12 Dec 2018 10:37:37 +0530
From:   Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the phy-next tree with Linus' tree

Hi,

On 12/12/18 9:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the phy-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom-qmp-phy.txt
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   7243ec72b902 ("dt-bindings: phy-qcom-qmp: Fix several mistakes from prior commits")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   91fdc9b127c9 ("dt-bindings: phy-qcom-qmp: Fix register underspecification")
> 
> from the phy-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter veriosn of the conflicting line)
> 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.

I've rebased by 'next' branch on top of my 'fixes' branch to avoid this conflict.

Thanks
Kishon
>