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: <20130828100431.3005d52d77c565c241399269@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:04:31 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc:	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
	<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

Hi all,

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:53:19 -0700 Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Sören Brinkmann (2013-08-27 08:44:11)
> > 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.
> 
> Stephen's fix is correct. The Zynq patches came in as fixes so I think
> this will be a rare event.

Can you guys discuss this and come up with a single answer.  I read the above as:

(for the two places I used CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT where the two
branches each added that and CLK_SET_RATE_NOREPARENT respectively)

"Stephen was wrong"
"Stephen should have taken both"
"Stephen was right"

:-)

I can fix up my merge resolution if you tell me the correct fix.  Also,
you will need to know so that you can tell Linus (or whoever else has to
resolve these conflicts).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped