linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc 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]

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3At56pHFJNojHFa=CHQxSXT1dtYTr8_t34AOcooE_b+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 14:50:45 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Cc:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
        ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nagarjuna Kristam <nkristam@...dia.com>,
        JC Kuo <jckuo@...dia.com>, Corentin Labbe <clabbe@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tegra tree with the arm-soc tree

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 2:18 PM Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:27:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > I fixed it up (I just used the version from the tegra tree) 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.
>
> Olof, Arnd,
>
> There was a bit of back and forth on this because there happened to be a
> conflict with the USB tree. I tried to clarify this as replies to the PR
> request:
>
>         http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1254523/
>
> But I suspect you may have missed those replies. The bottom line is,
> there is a v2 of the pull request that has the patches that are now in
> the Tegra tree. That's already part of a PR that went in through the USB
> tree as a dependency to resolve the conflict.
>
> So as a result there should be no need for ARM SoC to carry that PR. But
> if you still want to merge it, please pull v2, which is here:
>
>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tegra/linux.git tags/tegra-for-5.7-phy-v2
>

It was almost at the top of the branch, so I ended up just taking it out now, it
should be gone from the soc tree by tomorrow.

I think I managed to skip it as you asked on my first pass, but then failed to
reread the message when I went through the remaining entries in patchwork.

Clearly my tooling still needs  a bit of improvement.

      Arnd