linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the clk 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]

Message-ID: <20f57100-4440-4353-9c84-6e5781f7c6d3@DB9EHSMHS025.ehs.local>
Date:	Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:44:11 -0700
From:	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
To:	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the clk tree with Linus' tree

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:09:52AM +0100, James Hogan wrote:
> On 27/08/13 10:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the clk tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/clk/zynq/clkc.c between commits 252957cc3a2d ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add
> > dedicated spinlock for the SWDT") and 765b7d4c4cb3
> > ("clk/zynq/clkc: Add CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag to ethernet muxes") from
> > Linus' tree and commit 819c1de344c5 ("clk: add CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT
> > flag") from the clk tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below and in a couple of places I chose
> > CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, which may, of course,
> > be wrong) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> 
> The case you mentioned looks correct to me.
> 
> I can't see todays -next yet, but if by "choose CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT
> over CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT" you mean one branch adds CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> clk-next adds CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT, and the resolution ends up with
> only CLK_SET_RATE_NOREPARENT then that sounds wrong, as the two flags
> are orthogonal.

I can just agree, the case included in the mail looks correct, but in
case of other conflicts both flags should be set. Just like in the case
shown here.

	Sören


--
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/