linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the drm 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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:56:29 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the drm tree

Hi all,

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

  include/linux/kref.h

between commit:

  56e3d1cd05cc ("kref: prefer atomic_inc_not_zero to atomic_add_unless")

from the drm tree and commit:

  10383aea2f44 ("kref: Implement 'struct kref' using refcount_t")

from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the tip tree version of kref_get_unless_zero())
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