linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 09 Nov 2016 14:16:32 -0500
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the jc_docs tree

On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 15:19 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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.

Thank you for fixing and carrying the change.

Mimi