linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the media 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171114232520.1079a5c3@vento.lan>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 23:25:20 -0200
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Aishwarya Pant <aishpant@...il.com>,
        Branislav Radocaj <branislav@...ocaj.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 staging tree with the media
 tree

Em Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:28:06 +0200
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com> escreveu:

> Hi Stephen, Greg, others,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:24:47PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 19:26:54 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:  
> > >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   drivers/staging/media/atomisp/pci/atomisp2/css2400/sh_css_firmware.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >    866af46e6ebbc ("media: Staging: atomisp: fix alloc_cast.cocci warnings")
> > > 
> > > from the media tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >    4d962df5a7771 ("atomisp2: remove cast from memory allocation")
> > > 
> > > from the staging 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.  
> > 
> > Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.  
> 
> Both patches essentially contain the same change, the difference is in the
> indentation only. There's a number of atomisp patches in the media tree,
> how about simply reverting the patch in the staging tree?

Today morning I merged the changeset from staging tree that Greg 
sent to Linux (and that was already merged upstream), solving the conflict.

So, except if something else pops up, the conflict at -next will
cease to exist after it gets merged back there :-)

Regards,
Mauro