linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the tip 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]

Date:   Tue, 09 Jan 2018 12:36:52 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Darren Hart (VMware)" <dvhart@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the tip tree

On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 16:02 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   9d0513d82f1a ("x86/platform/intel-mid: Revert "Make 'bt_sfi_data'
> const"")
> 
> from the tip tree and patch:
> 
>   "arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/platform_bt.c: fix const
> confusion"
> 
> from the akpm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I dropped the akpm tree patch)

Yes, that is exactly what needs to be done.
Thanks!

Andrew, can you drop that patch from your quilt?

>  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.
> 

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy