linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with Linus' 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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:17:47 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 15:40:34 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/pidfd/pidfd_test.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   1fcd0eb356ad ("tests: fix pidfd-test compilation")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   233ad92edbea ("pidfd: add polling selftests")
> 
> from the pidfd tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter) 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 am still getting this conflict (the commit ids may have changed).
Just a reminder in case you think Linus may need to know.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped