linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/27] fb/drm: omapdss: Clean up the headers and separate the two stack

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: <20160607055116.GB22406@atomide.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 22:51:16 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>
Cc:	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>, plagnioj@...osoft.com,
	robdclark@...il.com, airlied@...ux.ie, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, jsarha@...com,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/27] fb/drm: omapdss: Clean up the headers and
 separate the two stack

* Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com> [160603 03:53]:
> 
> 
> On 02/06/16 18:23, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com> [160602 05:28]:
> >>
> >> Tony, can you have a look at the arch/arm parts here and give your ack
> >> if they're fine? They should be quite small and display specific, so I
> >> don't see much chance for conflict there.
> > 
> > Looks good to me, but these are going to conflict with the board-*.c
> > removal patches. And those we want to have easily revertable in case
> > of issues.
> > 
> > Peter, can you do an immutable minimal branch of just the pdata
> > changes affecting the board-*.c files? That way both Tomi and I
> > can merge that in.
> 
> I wonder how minimal it can be, as I think most of the patches are
> needed for pdata changes. Well, Peter can tell better.

Looks like Peter's new series deals with it just fine.

> What board changes do you expect for the next merge window? If it's just
> "git rm boardfile.c", that should be an easy conflict to resolve, right?

Trivial but no need to create these merge conflicts here.

Regards,

Tony