linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:29:00 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Paul Kocialkowski <contact@...lk.fr>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...roid.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with Linus' tree

Hi Stephen,

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 08:50:15AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/Makefile
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   38fc42486775 ("arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants")
>   2893af07e507 ("arm64: add endianness option to LDFLAGS instead of LD")
>   96f95a17c1cf ("Revert "arm64: Use aarch64elf and aarch64elfb emulation mode variants"")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   c931d34ea085 ("arm64: build with baremetal linker target instead of Linux when available")
> 
> from the arm64 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.

Thanks; that is the correct resolution.

Will