linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with the qcom 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPBZ5QdrbAnkAXvEqR2Y_BM9qhm6aZUaHbBKx6QSr6p3wvZH9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2017 09:45:51 -0600
From:   Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with the qcom tree

On 6 February 2017 at 05:44, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:23:29AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got conflicts in:
>>
>>   arch/arm/kernel/armksyms.c
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/arm64ksyms.c
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/smccc-call.S
>>   include/linux/arm-smccc.h
>>
>> between commits:
>>
>>   0a0c5b832751 ("arm: kernel: Add SMC structure parameter")
>>   9c96e7f72029 ("firmware: qcom: scm: Fix interrupted SCM calls")
>>
>> from the qcom tree and commits:
>>
>>   680a0873e193 ("arm: kernel: Add SMC structure parameter")
>>   82bcd087029f ("firmware: qcom: scm: Fix interrupted SCM calls")
>>
>> from the arm64 tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (please check the final resolution when it is released,
>> or fix these up) 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.
>
> Thanks Stephen, although if looks like you've resolved the conflict to
> be what is in the qcom tree, which is in fact an earlier version of this
> patch series.
>
> Andy, please can you drop your stuff from -next now that a newer version
> is queued via arm64? (and also please check that you're happy with what
> I've got queued).

Done.  And looking at your for-next/core, what you have is correct.

Regards,

Andy