linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sparc-next tree with the dma-mapping 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]

Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:44:20 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sparc-next tree with the
 dma-mapping tree

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 09:30:42AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the sparc-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/sparc/kernel/ioport.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   53b7670e5735 ("sparc: factor the dma coherent mapping into helper")
> 
> from the dma-mapping tree and commit:
> 
>   86ef771ed543 ("sparc: Use DT node full_name instead of name for resources")
> 
> from the sparc-next tree.

Dave, Sam:

should I just apply a version of Rob's tree that takes the refactoring
into account to the dma-mapping tree?  That way we should get the right
result independent of the merge order.