linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the phy-next 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190418175909.76f16930@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:59:09 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
Cc:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Linux Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the phy-next tree with the qcom
 tree

Hi Marc,

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:35:44 +0200 Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr> wrote:
>
> It is not clear to me what I could/should have done differently to avoid
> the conflict?

Nothing really, it will need to be fixed up when these trees are merged
into Linus' tree (or some other tree along the way).  It is not a big
problem as the conflict is pretty simple.  I send the emails just so
people can see what I think the resolution should be and correct me if
I am mistaken.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped