linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:26:51 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/net/can/m_can/tcan4x5x-core.c

between commit:

  aee2b3ccc8a6 ("can: tcan4x5x: fix bittiming const, use common bittiming from m_can driver")

from the net tree and commit:

  7813887ea972 ("can: tcan4x5x: rename tcan4x5x.c -> tcan4x5x-core.c")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (just removed the struct instances removed by the former)
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