linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the vfs 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 10:10:10 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christian Gromm <christian.gromm@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the vfs tree

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:06:49PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/staging/most/video/video.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   afc9a42b7464 ("the rest of drivers/*: annotate ->poll() instances")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   1b10a0316e2d ("staging: most: video: remove aim designators")
> 
> 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.

Fix looks correct to me, thanks.

greg k-h