linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 21:46:52 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 13:39:02 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> I fixed it up (the latter removed the code updated by the former, so I
> just used the latter) 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 Stephen,

Yeah, updates caused errors that needed to be fixed, which we knew were
just a work around till the next merge window. Which is why that commit
had in the comments: "Nested is a workaround that will soon not be
needed." ;-)

-- Steve