linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the s390 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 18:23:28 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the s390
 tree

Hi Andrew,

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

  arch/s390/mm/gup.c

between commit:

  1a42010cdc26 ("s390/mm: convert to the generic get_user_pages_fast code")

from the s390 tree and commit:

  0dbe0ed39fa1 ("mm/gup: change GUP fast to use flags rather than a write 'bool'")

from the akpm-current tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the file, so I just did that) 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