linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the qcom 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: <20190129210726.GA31708@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:07:26 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>
Cc:     Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Dai <daidavid1@...eaurora.org>,
        Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the qcom tree

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 02:30:08PM -0600, Andy Gross wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 05:46, Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On 1/29/19 05:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> > >
> > > between commits:
> > >
> > >   05556681948b ("arm64: dts: sdm845: Add videocc node")
> > >   5b6f186f0abb ("arm64: dts: sdm845: Add rpmh powercontroller node")
> > >
> > > from the qcom tree and commit:
> > >
> > >   ae0037dbfc5e ("arm64: dts: sdm845: Add interconnect provider DT nodes")
> > >
> > > from the char-misc 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.
> 
> Greg,
> I'd prefer in this instance that this patch get dropped from
> char-misc.  I have too much stuff in flight with some additional
> patches coming in to mess with this right now.  And we don't have
> clients rdy anyway for this so let's wait till next cycle on this one.

Now reverted.

thanks,

greg k-h