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: 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists