linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with Linus' 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171204100527.1366a333@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:05:27 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with Linus' tree

Hi Al,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-rhine.c

between commit:

  a7e4fbbfdf79 ("net: via: via-rhine: use %p to format void * address instead of %x")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  68fef306c2a5 ("via: trivial sparse annotations")

from the vfs tree.

I fixed it up (I used the version of the netdev_info line change from
Linus' tree) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell