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

Message-ID: <CAKMK7uE=Jh8Sh_knC7L2=nmCiwPrt0Q5f4Cv4djpgsncOxFfpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:01:45 +0200
From:	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm tree with Linus' tree

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm tree got a conflict in
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c between commit 7aa1e7f06d6e ("Revert
> "drm/i915: allow PCH PWM override on IVB"") from Linus' tree and commit
> 7cf416014813 ("drm/i915: clear up backlight #define confusion on gen4+")
> from the drm tree.
>
> The former removed the function ivb_pch_pwm_override() that is modified
> by the latter, so I did that - or should I have just ignored the revert
> patch?

Nope, the revert should take precedence because that code is bogus -
the change in -next is just replacing a magic value with a proper
#define.

Cheers, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
daniel.vetter@...ll.ch - +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
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/