linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the s5p 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: <20120701102702.59edea72baa820cd3ac7c636@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:27:02 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	"Eric Bénard" <eric@...rea.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the s5p tree

Hi Thierry,

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:58:47 +0200 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 04:49:46PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the pwm tree got a conflict in
> > arch/arm/plat-samsung/Makefile between commit 65ab16fd385f ("ARM: EXYNOS:
> > Remove leftovers of the Samsung specific power domain control") from the
> > s5p tree and commit 2663e766c56a ("ARM Samsung: Move s3c pwm driver to
> > pwm framework") from the pwm tree.
> > 
> > Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> > necessary.
> 
> I wonder, when these changes are merged by Linus during the merge
> window, does he have to resolve these conflicts again or does he get the
> resolutions from you? Or should I rather base the PWM tree on top of the
> corresponding EXYNOS changes to sidestep the issue?

He will resolve the merge conflicts again but he is good at that.  You do
not need to do anything about these simple conflicts.  Rebasing your tree
would effectively throw away any testing you had done and possibly
introduce more problems into your tree from the other changes.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped