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]
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:27:46 +0300
From:   Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Chaya Rachel Ivgi <chaya.rachel.ivgi@...el.com>,
        Shahar S Matityahu <shahar.s.matityahu@...el.com>,
        Wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with
 the wireless-drivers tree

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:21 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:16:36PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> 
> > This is weird... The previous conflict was the exact opposite of
> > this. 
> > 44fd09 came in from wireless-drivers and dd05f9 came from wireless-
> > drivers-next.  I don't understand why it is saying the opposite
> > here...
> 
> I may have confused the trees when I was pasting things in, the
> commits
> are filled in by hand.

Ah, okay.  But still, if the same patches conflicted twice, why wasn't
there only one occurrence with both conflicts at once?

--
Luca.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ