linux-kernel - Re: pull-request: wireless-drivers 2019-04-30

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 19:55:45 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: wireless-drivers 2019-04-30

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:

> From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:10:01 +0300
>
>> here's one more pull request to net tree for 5.1, more info below.
>> 
>> Also note that this pull conflicts with net-next. And I want to emphasie
>> that it's really net-next, so when you pull this to net tree it should
>> go without conflicts. Stephen reported the conflict here:
>> 
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190429115338.5decb50b@canb.auug.org.au
>> 
>> In iwlwifi oddly commit 154d4899e411 adds the IS_ERR_OR_NULL() in
>> wireless-drivers but commit c9af7528c331 removes the whole check in
>> wireless-drivers-next. The fix is easy, just drop the whole check for
>> mvmvif->dbgfs_dir in iwlwifi/mvm/debugfs-vif.c, it's unneeded anyway.
>> 
>> As usual, please let me know if you have any problems.
>
> Pulled, thanks Kalle.

Great, thanks.

> Thanks for the conflict resolution information, it is very helpful.
>
> However, can you put it into the merge commit text next time as well?
> I cut and pasted it in there when I pulled this stuff in.

A good idea, I'll do that. Just to be sure, do you mean that I should
add it only with conflicts between net and net-next (like in this case)?
Or should I add it everytime I see a conflict, for example between
wireless-drivers-next and net-next? I hope my question is not too
confusing...

-- 
Kalle Valo