[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+zORWwifQ7DPg6LkNNsKm0uPSR=pkGaF=GQ5kGOtURsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:40:26 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Allen Pais <allen.lkml@...il.com>, linux-usb@...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 usb-gadget tree with the usb tree
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the usb-gadget tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/snps_udc_core.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 29bce57723351f63d ("usb/gadget/snps_udc_core: Convert timers to use timer_setup()")
>
> from the usb tree and commit:
>
> 46b614affda8667f9 ("usb: gadget: udc: snps_udc_core: use setup_timer() helper.")
>
> from the usb-gadget tree.
>
> I fixed it up by taking the USB 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.
FWIW, timer_setup() should be preferred over setup_timer().
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists