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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:30:33 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, 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 tip tree with the s390 tree Hi all, On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:51:45 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in: > > arch/s390/include/asm/rwsem.h > > between commit: > > 91a1fad759ffd ("s390: use generic rwsem implementation") > > from the s390 tree and commit: > > a61ba2c8a48f1 ("locking/arch, s390: Add __down_read_killable()") > > from the tip tree. > > I fixed it up by re-deleting the file 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. Just a reminder that this conflict still exists. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists