linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the staging.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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190408103437.GK9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:34:37 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the
 staging.current tree

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 11:14:39AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:01:21 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:14:58AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:02:12 +1000
> > > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:
> > > > 
> > > >   drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c
> > > > 
> > > > between commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   20ea39ef9f2f ("iio: Fix scan mask selection")
> > > > 
> > > > from the staging.current tree and commit:
> > > > 
> > > >   3862828a903d ("iio: buffer: Switch to bitmap_zalloc()")
> > > > 
> > > > from the staging tree.
> > > > 
> > > > I fixed it up (I just used the staging tree 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 Stephen,
> > > 
> > > That is the correct resolution.  
> > 
> > I think it still misses the following fix:

> Is that actually a problem given it's copied over from buffer->scan_mask just after allocation?
> The two masks are the same length so I don't think we have a problem with this one.
> Am I missing something?

Hmm... I didn't get why the commit 20ea39ef9f2f fixes anything.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko