linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 5 Jan 2020 17:50:35 -0800 (PST)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with Linus' tree

Hi Stephen,

On Mon, 6 Jan 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> 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.

Thanks, I just reset our for-next branch to v5.5-rc5, so this won't 
reappear.

- Paul