linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb-next tree with the v4l-dvb 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: <20190425122320.2a2ee0f5@coco.lan>
Date:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:23:20 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb-next tree with the
 v4l-dvb tree

Em Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:12:42 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> escreveu:

> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:51 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   drivers/media/platform/Kconfig
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   63604a143fe1 ("media: seco-cec: fix building with RC_CORE=m")
> >
> > from the v4l-dvb tree and commit:
> >
> >   81527254e151 ("media: seco: depend on CONFIG_RC_CORE=y when not a module")
> >
> > from the v4l-dvb-next tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just used the v4l-dvb 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!
> 
> Both patches are correct, they just use slightly different syntax, so
> the merge is fine as well.

I just removed the one from fixes, keeping just the one on my master
branch.

Thanks,
Mauro