linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the rtc tree with the omap 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190409152226.5fecccd1@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:22:26 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the rtc tree with the omap tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the rtc tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/rtc/rtc-omap.c

between commit:

  6256f7f7f217 ("rtc: OMAP: Add support for rtc-only mode")

from the omap tree and commit:

  35118b7a4ea0 ("rtc: omap: let the core handle range")

from the rtc tree.

I fixed it up (I used the latter resolution around tm2bcd() changes) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped