linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.current 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: <CAKq8=3JWvzCo04cmVKAQ-Wpa0nS8ShOw2e7HP_fpBz6HZg+Drw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:39:02 +0800
From:   Bo YU <tsu.yubo@...il.com>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the
 char-misc.current tree

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:07 PM Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/04/2019 04:56, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >    drivers/misc/fastrpc.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >    01b76c32e3f3 ("misc: fastrpc: add checked value for dma_set_mask")
> >
> > from the char-misc.current tree and commit:
> >
> >    977e6c8d1d18 ("misc: fastrpc: use correct spinlock variant")
> >
> > 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
> Greg did request Bo YU to rebase this patch on top of char-misc tree.
 Yes.The patch was v2 after rebasing char-misc tree.
>
> That would be a real fix for this conflict, until then this fixup should
> work.
Is there any modifies need me?
Anyway thank everyone!
>
> --srini
> > 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.
> >