linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4b58d5ab-c924-97af-728f-b9f524e62a53@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:39:11 -0700
From:   "santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com" <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the arm-soc tree

On 4/20/17 10:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the pm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   7cc119f29b19 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>>   45da8edd1741 ("dt-bindings: Add TI SCI PM Domains")
>>
>> from the pm tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I just used the pm 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.
>
> Dave, Santosh,
>
> any idea what happened here? It seems that we picked up the wrong
> version of the tree, do we need to drop this from arm-soc?
>
Nope. Its because this series was in my 'next' branch for a week or
so and now it made it via arm-soc tree next as well.

I just cleaned up my next head so it linux-next next tag should have
only arm-soc copy.

Regards,
Santosh