linux-kernel - RE: linux-next: manual merge of the at91 tree with the arm-soc 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:50:57 +0000
From:   <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>
To:     <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
        <olof@...om.net>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC:     <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <peda@...ntia.se>
Subject: RE: linux-next: manual merge of the at91 tree with the arm-soc tree

> Hi Nicolas,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the at91 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-tse850-3.dts
> between commit:
>
> e67cedc92812 ("ARM: dts: at91: add envelope detector mux to the Axentia TSE-850")
>
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>
>  29dd89418007 ("ARM: dts: at91: add envelope detector mux to the Axentia TSE-850")
>
> from the at91 tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the arm-soc tree version) 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.

Stephen,

Yes, the use of arm-soc version was the way to go. I now have updated my at91-next tree to match Alexandre's pull-request and hope it is not in conflict anymore.

Thanks for your fix.
Best regards,