linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm64 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:08:46 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the powerpc tree with the arm64 tree

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 11:44:43AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   arch/Kconfig
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   5cf896fb6be3 ("arm64: Add support for relocating the kernel with RELR relocations")
> >
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> >
> >   0c9c1d563975 ("x86, s390: Move ARCH_HAS_MEM_ENCRYPT definition to arch/Kconfig")
> >
> > from the powerpc tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) 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.
> 
> That conflict seems entirely trivial, but Catalin/Will if it bothers you
> I have the conflicting commit in a topic branch based on rc2 which you
> could merge to resolve it:

It's a trivial conflict, easy to resolve. I don't think it's worth
trying to avoid it (Linus normally doesn't mind such conflicts).

-- 
Catalin