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

Message-ID: <20170831110759.334c9fe2@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:07:59 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the pm tree with the dmi tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/acpi/blacklist.c

between commit:

  f996c4155d0d ("dmi: Mark all struct dmi_system_id instances const")

from the dmi tree and commit:

  5aa5911a0ed9 ("ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform_list()")

from the pm tree.

I fixed it up (see below) 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