linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the wireless-drivers 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: <cc5e71b2ae7c72b643b9666897bbf6eda4bddbb6.camel@coelho.fi>
Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:19:34 +0300
From:   Luca Coelho <luca@...lho.fi>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        Wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the
 wireless-drivers tree

Hi Stephen,

On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 11:54 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/debugfs-vif.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   154d4899e411 ("iwlwifi: mvm: properly check debugfs dentry before using it")
>   d156e67d3f58 ("iwlwifi: mvm: fix merge damage in iwl_mvm_vif_dbgfs_register()")
> 
> from the wireless-drivers tree and commit:
> 
>   c9af7528c331 ("iwlwifi: mvm: no need to check return value of debugfs_create functions")
> 
> from the net-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the latter removed the code modified by the former, 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.

I checked your merge and it looks good, thanks!

--
Cheers,
Luca.