linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200106093246.6abbb7e9@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jan 2020 09:32:46 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst

between commit:

  0e194d9da198 ("Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  d89a1a16d7dc ("Documentation: riscv: add patch acceptance guidelines")

from the risc-v tree.

I fixed it up (I used the version from Linus' tree as that was committed
later) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped