linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the m68k 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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1808042209030.9@nippy.intranet>
Date:   Sat, 4 Aug 2018 22:25:37 +1000 (AEST)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the m68k
 tree

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:42 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > [forgot the conflict resolution ...]
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:27:20 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > >   arch/m68k/mac/misc.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > >   5b9bfb8ec467 ("m68k: mac: Use time64_t in RTC handling")
> > >
> > > from the m68k tree and commit:
> > >
> > >   ebd722275f9c ("macintosh/via-pmu: Replace via-pmu68k driver with via-pmu driver")
> > >
> > > from the powerpc 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.
> 
> Ah, now I remember Finn said he was going to rebase his series once the 
> time64_t patch has entered my tree...
> 

The conflict I was worried about was avoided when I dropped v3 patch 10/12 
("macintosh: Use common code to access RTC"). I'll rework that patch after 
all the PMU and RTC work makes its way into Linus' tree.

> > --- a/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c
> > +++ b/arch/m68k/mac/misc.c
> > @@@ -90,11 -85,11 +90,11 @@@ static void cuda_write_pram(int offset
> >   }
> >   #endif /* CONFIG_ADB_CUDA */
> >
> > - #ifdef CONFIG_ADB_PMU68K
> > + #ifdef CONFIG_ADB_PMU
> >  -static long pmu_read_time(void)
> >  +static time64_t pmu_read_time(void)
> >   {
> >         struct adb_request req;
> >  -      long time;
> >  +      time64_t time;
> >
> >         if (pmu_request(&req, NULL, 1, PMU_READ_RTC) < 0)
> >                 return 0;
> 
> Thanks, looks good to me!
> 

Looks good to me, too.

Thanks.

-- 

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 
>