linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the driver-core tree with the iommu 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180711105813.GA18417@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 12:58:13 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org>,
        Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
        Magnus Damm <damm+renesas@...nsource.se>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the driver-core tree with the iommu
 tree

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 01:14:45PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the driver-core tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/iommu/ipmmu-vmsa.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   0b8ac1409641 ("iommu/ipmmu-vmsa: Hook up r8a7796 DT matching code")
>   3701c123e1c1 ("iommu/ipmmu-vmsa: Hook up r8a779(70|95) DT matching code")
>   98dbffd39a65 ("iommu/ipmmu-vmsa: Hook up R8A77965 DT matching code")
> 
> from the iommu tree and commit:
> 
>   ac6bbf0cdf42 ("iommu: Remove IOMMU_OF_DECLARE")
> 
> from the driver-core tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I removed the new IOMMU_OF_DECLARE() lines) 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.

Resolution seems sane to me, thanks.

greg k-h