linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160912091723.614b1378@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:17:23 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree

Hi Catalin,

Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c

between commit:

  63fb0a9516b2 ("drivers/perf: arm_pmu: Fix NULL pointer dereference during probe")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  282b87963556 ("drivers/perf: arm_pmu: Always consider IRQ0 as an error")

from the arm64 tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the version from the arm64 tree) and can
carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is
concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your
upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may
also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting
tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell