linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the jc

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20161109151915.16d93e4b@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:19:15 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the jc_docs tree

Hi Andrew,

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

  Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst

between commit:

  e52347bd66f6 ("Documentation/admin-guide: split the kernel parameter list to a separate file")

from the jc_docs tree and patch:

  "ima: define a canonical binary_runtime_measurements list format"

from the akpm tree.

I fixed it up (I moved the change to
Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt) 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