linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the s390 tree with the kbuild 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:37:49 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the s390 tree with the kbuild tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the s390 tree got a conflict in:

  arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/Kbuild

between commit:

  65017bab8a9e ("uapi: export all headers under uapi directories")

from the kbuild tree and commit:

  916cda1aa1b4 ("s390: add a system call for guarded storage")

from the s390 tree.

I fixed it up (the form should supercede the latter, so I used the former)
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