linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm for v4.7

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: <CAPM=9twtavLEZ1nTaLoCSz9baM8T0yETxY+f9cx+H8=DwpKcoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2016 05:55:16 +1000
From:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	DRI mailing list <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for v4.7

On 24 May 2016 at 05:23, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> On 24 May 2016 at 05:20, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 24 May 2016 at 04:59, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's the main drm pull request for 4.7, it's been
>>>> a busy one, and I've been a bit more distracted in
>>>> real life this merge window.
>>>
>>> Hmm.
>>>
>>> I pulled this, but I think I'll have to unpull again.
>>>
>>> Neither the diffstat not the shortlog match what you sent me. There's
>>> four extra commits at the top that aren't mentioned:
>>>
>>>   Dave Airlie (3):
>>>       drm/edid: move displayid tiled block parsing into separate function.
>>>       drm/edid: move displayid validation to it's own function.
>>>       drm/edid: add displayid detailed 1 timings to the modelist. (v1.1)
>>>
>>>   Tomas Bzatek (1):
>>>       drm/displayid: Iterate over all DisplayID blocks
>>>
>>> was that intentional? What happened? Are those commits meant to be
>>> merged, or are they wrong? They _look_ ok, but dammit, according to
>>> your message they shouldn't be there.
>>
>> Okay they are meant to be in there, I just had them on my merge list,
>> remembered I hadn't merged them, but had generated a pull request earlier
>> to edit for you and forgot to regenerate it. I'll follow up with a new
>> pull request
>> if you like just to keep things straight.
>>
>> The "extern C" warnings were one of the patches Arnd sent, I'll follow up with
>> those today.

FYI:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/87900/

is a link to Arnd's patch.

Dave.