linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the omap

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]

Message-Id: <201203091150.11294.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:50:11 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the omap_dss2 tree

On Friday 09 March 2012, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:16 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 March 2012, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the arm-soc tree got a conflict in
> > > arch/arm/mach-omap1/board-palmtt.c between commit ddba6c7f7ec6 ("OMAP1:
> > > pass LCD config with omapfb_set_lcd_config()") from the omap_dss2 tree
> > > and commit 2e3ee9f45b3c ("ARM: OMAP1: Move most of plat/io.h into local
> > > iomap.h") from the arm-soc tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> > 
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > Thanks for fixing up all the conflicts between arm-soc and omap_dss2.
> > I think we should make sure they are resolved in one of the trees before
> > the merge window.
> 
> Do we need to? The conflicts seemed to be trivial ones, like arm-soc
> adds/removes something that just happens to be next to something else
> that I add/remove.
> 
> My understanding is that it's better to leave those conflicts than to do
> "trickery" to avoid them.

Each of the conflicts is simple enough, but I feel it's worth resolving
them in this case because there are a number of them. Looking at them
again now, it's probably ok either way -- resolving them now or letting
Linus take care of them.

> > Tomi, what are your plans for the omap_dss2 branch to get merged?
> 
> Normally my tree goes via fbdev-tree (Florian's tree) to mainline.

ok.

> > Do you think you should send it to Linus first and we merge it into
> > arm-soc to resolve the conflicts?
> > Or do you want to merge it through the arm-soc tree?
> > Or should we go first and you fix up the conflicts by pulling in the
> > necessary topic branches from arm-soc into your tree?
> 
> If we want to resolve the conflicts, perhaps it's simplest if the dss
> tree is merged to arm-soc.

Ok. Maybe we'll just merge them in case Florian is upstream faster and
not merge them otherwise.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/