linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the sh 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:53:15 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the sh tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got conflicts in:

  arch/sh/kernel/traps_64.c
  arch/sh/kernel/signal_64.c
  arch/sh/kernel/ptrace_64.c
  arch/sh/kernel/process_64.c

between commit:

  37744feebc08 ("sh: remove sh5 support")

from the sh tree and patch:

  "mm: don't include asm/pgtable.h if linux/mm.h is already included"

from the akpm tree.

I fixed it up (the former deleted the file, so I did that) 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